Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonjasufi


 * 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   keep. Substantial additional sources have been identified in the course of this AFD and there have been no arguments for deletion (and numerous for retention) in the subsequent two weeks. (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Gonjasufi

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No substantial indication of notability for 3 months. All sources are first person or similarly not reliable sources Shadowjams (talk) 07:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - 3 months! Shadowjams is on target here, good work. Jusdafax  14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Click on the link to the article on his album and you'll see several sources linked, including Metacritic, which links to lots of reviews. See also the Allmusic biography. The following all come up in the first 2 pages of Google results for Gonjasufi, which makes the deletion nomination somewhat mystifying: BBC, Drowned in Sound, The Guardian, Pitchfork Media. Bringing articles like this to AFD without at least spending a few minutes looking for evidence of notability simply wastes the time of other editors. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)...or, worse, results in an article on a notable subject being deleted.--Michig (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But an obviously notable one that already has sources (one URL was broken - I've fixed it). Why relist?--Michig (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Just a quick glance at the Metacritic page given by Michig is enough to see that this artist has generated enough coverage and reviews in reliable sources to warrant an article. Easily notable enough. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's on my todo list to add all these sources to the article. I haven't had time recently but will get round to it when I can.--Michig (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have now - see also the album article.--Michig (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep – Plenty of coverage in reliable independent sources. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The pointers given by Michig show that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 07:44, 5 July 2010 (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.