Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Rouse


 * 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. There is no assertion here of lack of notability or any other reason to delete. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Josh Rouse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

delete, unsourced blp Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * speedy keep. Nomination without due diligence. It is "unfootnoted", not "unsourced". The artist meets WP:MUSIC. -M.Altenmann >t 18:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AltenmannI was unaware that allmusic, myspace are now the standard for refencing a biography, something glorious is a blog (not sure about it's reliability however it may be), hit quarters is decent but what is it being used to reference? This next "reference" is my personal favorite [], as ad to sell a guitar that surely is a useful reference. I don't know what I must have been thinking nominating this so quickly without apparently any good reason whatsoever. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Billboard isn't a blog. Paste isn't a blog . Entertainment Weekly isn't a blog . The Daily News isn't a blog.


 * Article does need referencing improvements, absolutely, but with eleven albums on sufficiently notable record labels, this is an artist who cleanly passes WP:NMUSIC (which actually requires just two). I'm not even a fan, and I've heard of him often enough that I recognized his name instantly before I even clicked on the article to verify how sourced it was and how many albums he'd put out. And the coverage is definitely out there to salvage this with: just five seconds on Google News gave me an Entertainment Weekly citation — EW being among the gold-standard sources for an American musician — to add to the article right off the top, without even having to put any actual work into source hunting. So there's no doubt to be had that this can be salvaged. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bearcat, literally a dozen reviews listed here, and that's just for one album. There's also 11 for 1972 (album). I would recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination now because Rouse's notability is quite clear.  Everymorning   talk  23:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearcat; it does not take much to research some sources, and so on.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Clearly flawed nomination and the subject is clearly notable. Plenty of sources exist to deal with the concern raised. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck does no one realize I'm not contesting notability. I was contesting that it was unsourced. read the fucking rationale for christ sakes it isn't rocket science. If you want to fix a BLP with no sources great but this has been in a shitty state for a long time and I had no choice but to take it to AFD for those issues because it didn't qualify for a BLP prod as it was too old. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hell in a Bucket, Deletion is not cleanup. Everymorning   talk  02:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Obviously or I would have tagged it for clean up. I made a considered decision on what I thought was best for the pedia. I don't care if people disagree with the rationale but at lest don't flame me for something I wasn't suggesting. I believe we have BLP prods for a reason, it doesn't matter if the subject is notable, it matters that it is sourced and can be verified. If those things happen I'm happy to see it kept because that is what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The obvious option open to you was/is to fix it yourself. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right that was a option and I choose not to pursue it. If you have a problem with that there is plenty of boards to take it but if you are just going to whine about it here and flame people do everyone a favor and at least make your drivel something that is applicable to the reason it was nominated or simply shut up. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I have made any comments here that were not directly relevant to the AfD discussion. You said you had no choice but to take it to AfD, I pointed out another option. Would it kill you to calm down and be civil towards other editors? --Michig (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If there were a legitimate disagreement about whether the topic even passed a basic notability test in the first place, then AFD would be appropriate. But if (a) notability is absolutely clearcut and there's not even the flimsiest basis for an actual dispute about that, and (b) the article is just inadequately sourced (the sourcing was inadequate, absolutely, but the article was not completely unsourced), and (c) better sourcing is as easily and readily and obviously available as it was here, then we flag it for cleanup rather than listing it for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's go ahead and read the link used earlier specifically [] where it states that even notable subjects can still be subject to deletion. I don't care that sourcing is readily available, I nominated it for a prod and apparently sourcing in another article is sufficient to source a BLP at least according to Michig []. Let's compare [] that's more then a year after I prodded and the article was virtually unchanged, however a consensus could change that with a proper discussion. I waited for over a year then I asked for deletion via this discussion, if the people here think it's worth keeping great I'm glad they want to improve it but I repeat it's fucking ludicrous to contest a rationale for deletion that was never used.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we close this disruptive nomination of an obviously notable subject? Even the nominator admits that it was pointy and has no actual deletion rationale. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominate r has admitted to no such thing, the nomination is well within the guidelines for deletion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then what is your deletion rationale? --162.95.216.224 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Literally every single sentence in this article is sourced. At least a dozen of the 20 references meet WP:RS. This is farcical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly when I nominated it had every sentence sourced and I did this all because I like making stuff up [], seriously if you want to whine about why I nominated it, really it does help to know what you are talking about and at least do a good faith reading over the rationale provided originally and the subsequent discussion. It's all here on this page if you took 2 minutes to read it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The article in its current state is 100 percent well-sourced. Its state a week ago has exactly zero to do with notability or its current state. The article is sourced and is clearly notable and your patent refusal to withdraw this nomination despite cleanup and improvements and the clear notability of the subject is simply beyond understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (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.