Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carvin & Ivan (Karma Productions)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Carvin & Ivan (Karma Productions)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This production team is not notable (although one member of it may be). I have been unable to find any coverage of it whatsoever despite diligent searching. Bongo  matic  03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think this article COULD pass the notability test, given work, but the sources aren't there to support it at the moment, so it fails WP:N. I'd revisit the issue if anyone does significant work on adding independent secondary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you haven't done the work to look for sources yourself, then you have no actual basis for determining whether something is notable or not. Checking notability involves looking for sources onesself.  Anything less is zero help to either Wikipedia or AFD, since it doesn't contribute anything to the process.  Contrast that with Bongomatic's making efforts to find sources xyrself. Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing at Articles_for_deletion that requires anyone discussing the issue to go do research. I'll admit to being relatively new, and if there's some other policy you're referring to I'd be grateful to be directed to it!  But my understanding is that an article has to stand or fall on its own merits - we're assessing what's there, not what could possibly be there maybe in the future - and while users who improve an article during AfD like Bongomatic are to be lauded and commended, there's nothing to say that every commentor must do that additional legwork before expressing an opinion.  If an article is nonsense, but could potentially STOP being nonsense, it doesn't help anyone to say, "Non-nonsense information on this topic exists at some other place on the web, so we should keep." Not trying to be argumentative - I'm genuinely interested in having the relevant policy pointed out to me if I've got it wrong. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be plenty of coverage out there to sort through. Since they have several Grammy nominations between them, there must be some notable hook to hang this material on here and so it's just a matter of filing it under the right heading(s), not deleting it.   The nominator's diligence in searching for sources is commendable but note that the name seems to be Haggins, not Higgins. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the nomination, one team member (Specifically, Barias) may be notable, but the production company is not. There is nothing beyond passing reference to Karma Productions or the two together. With respect to searches, I have done numerous ones (including with correct spelling!). Bongo  matic  22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If Barias is notable, as you indicate, then there is a good alternative to deletion &mdash; merger or rename to an article about him. The name of the production company/partnership seems a reasonable search term and so we should maintain the link per our editing policy.  See also our deletion policy which urges that such alternatives be explored before bringing matters here. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say he is notable, I said he may be notable. Moreover, my view is that should an article on him be written, it would be better started from scratch. The current article doesn't separate out the works of the different partners at all and is overwhelmed by unencyclopedic discography. Bongo  matic  04:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find anything substantial or what would recognise as significant coverage as required by the general notability guideline. The only sources I can find are trivial or passing mentions such, . Guest9999 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.