Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Phineas Waldolf Steel


 * 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 03:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Phineas Waldolf Steel

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This look like a deletion candidate, let's confirm. No notability. VoltronForce 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as obvious nonsense. In fact, I'm going to tag it as such. Clarityfiend 02:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as recreation of deleted material, see Articles for deletion/Doctor Steel. --Bongwarrior 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, reposted deletion. Realkyhick 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, see talk page. 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)~
 * Keep, Doctor Phineas Waldolf Steel is definately worth an article.
 * Speedy delete per above. Also, it seems like an urban legend; nothing real on MSN, or Google , almost of which are wikis.  Who is this guy? It's raining in England, but snowing here. Bearian 20:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've run the article through the deletion policy. Neither of the reasons for deletion apply. Previous deletion reasons were lack of noteability, whereas this issue has been fixed now. Dr. Steel has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. He also has performed in a television show.Trike123 22:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The cited reason in the prior AfD was the image gallery, so I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt. The text is probably only 60% original to the old version, with significant changes. The notability of the artist is borderline, though I don't see anything that clearly meets WP:MUSIC. The problem is verifiability. There's a blog post on Wired, an interview at Suicide Girls, and two seconds worth of video from a Tonight Show commercial at YouTube. Everything else is blogs, a Tripod site, or self-published. Therefore, it fails verifiability due to dearth of independent, reliable sources with articles, etc. specifically about the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the "Blog" posts Is actually the private site of Jack Rawstone a Journalist for UnderMagazine.Gunhouse 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry guys, I can't see anything notable about this character/article, except for its spoof properties. Seems more like a publicity stunt for a non-notable artist. Uranometria 13:31, 25 July 2007 (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.