Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Dines


 * 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   speedy delete. Author has requested deletion  DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Dines

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Subject fails WP:BIO ---Hu12 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

This article has plenty of profiled references to be worthy of a wikipedia page, including endorsements from profiled members of the public. It is currently an orphan however, that does not mean it should be deleted according to wikipedia guideline on orphans. Seeing that I'm spending the next month or so on this article (to de-orphan it) it seems a bit silly to call for a "deletion". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC).


 * Delete. Article has been an orphan for almost two years and is exclusively edited by a single-issue editor that seems to have a WP:COI. It lacks any real evidence of notability and, judging by the complete lack of interest in the article, is unlikely to actually be notable. Glaucus (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

There are many articles which have been orphans for "years". This was only tagged orphaned two weeks ago giving editors very little time to add links. An orphan doesn't call for delete. You clearly have no idea of the electronic dance music industry therefore you should focus on subjects you have more insight on, yes? There are hundreds of dance music wiki articles with less links than this profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC) — Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC).
 * No one is saying the article should be deleted simply because it's an orphan. It's an orphan for the same reason it should be deleted: the article's subject appears to be non-notable. There is no evidence of notability in the article, no use of reliable sources and the first two pages of google results bring up almost entirely self-published sources and profiles. Glaucus (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Billyjazz79, All topics are subject to Wikiprdias inclusion criteria and must demonstrate notability. knowledge of the electronic dance music industry isn't a requirement of notability and is irrelevant. Pointing out that there are other articles doesn't prove that this article should also exist--Hu12 (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

If you truly believe it should be deleted, then do it promptly i.e. right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjazz79 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The orphaned status of the article is cause for concern, but it is not a reason for deletion. However, I can't see that Dines meets WP:MUSIC, and he seems to fall short of WP:GNG. Two of the references are to non-trivial articles, , but the first doesn't look like a reliable source and second of the two is a blog. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Move to Speedy delete under WP:CSD: Author has requested deletion explicitly twice;. Article tagged accordingly.--Hu12 (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2012 (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.