Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cascone


 * 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. SPA and dubious rationales aside, self-editing aside, some editors assert that sufficient sourcing can be found, some that it does not exist, and both have apparently reasonable positions. This decision is without prejudice to a renomination down the road if it becomes clear that substantive sourcing indeed does not exist on this subject. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Kim Cascone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Miserably-sourced overlong bio of obscure composer and self-publisher. I don't spot much in the way of reliable sources for this BLP. Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  23:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. While apparently started by someone else, the article has been heavily edited by the subject (or someone doing a very good job of impersonating him), and the nearest that it comes to sourcing is a collection of primary external links. As a BLP, it is going to have to be significantly rewritten (and sourced) if kept. However, the subject himself may well be notable. An article on "The Aesthetics of Failure" gets 185 hits of GScholar, and seems to have become something of a manifesto for glitch (music). The best GNews hit that I could identify was this one from The Scotsman, but as the rest seem to be in about a dozen languages and mostly from apparently specialist publications, someone who is more of a linguist and/or knows more about the less accessible areas of electronic music than me might well find more and better - and similarly for the GBooks hits. And there are also passing mentions in apparently reliable sources (like this from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) which suggest that readers is already expected to have heard of the subject - useless in themselves for notability but still hinting at sources elsewhere. PWilkinson (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Kim Cascone may or may not be notable, but there are so few reliable sources online supporting this notion, it's preoposterous that the initial article consisted of a page-long run-on sentence, followed by so much unverified, personal biographical information, as mentioned by Pwilkinson, it had to have been contributed to by the artist himself significantly. I have seen articles removed for having less than three citations from major news affiliates, and a quick Google search yields very little to nothing in terms of those.  Similarly, I have seen many articles referred to disaparagingly as "vanity articles" for far less.  A quick look at Mr. Csscone's Twitter account reveals a passionate interest in things like "psycho-spirituality" and "the consciousness of lab-grown meat."  Hardly scholastic pursuits, for someone whose Wikipedia article praises his academic accomplishments and lists one of his many occupations as "teacher."  If the article is revised substantially to include several, independent, reliable news sources, I may change my vote to "keep."  As it stands now, it's a perfect example of how not to maintain neutrality in keeping with BLP guidelines. 174.16.3.12 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC) — 174.16.3.12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - the article is in dreadful shape, but the subject does appear to be notable being covered in a variety of books in addition to the press noted above. See, , and  for examples. -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The two citations noted above would not alone be enough to merit a keep. I recommend that someone seriously overhaul the article with multiple citations, and even then I would change my decision to "weak keep" unless the article were more thoroughly in line with Wikipedia's well-established NPOV policy.  Again, as it is now, the article reads like it was written by either the subject or someone very close to him.  Find reliable citations regarding his ownership of Silent Records, the sale of the company, his involvement with all the artists the author has mentioned, the academic accomplishments of the subject, and all of the other biographical information in the article.  Until reliable news sources can be produced to verify this information, it should be considered potentially libelous, whether the information is accurate or not.  174.16.3.174 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Cleaning up the prose is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. However, providing adequate citations for claims asserted as factual in the article itself (i.e., details of his education and academic background, the businesses he owned, who he worked for (including David Lynch), his knowledge of the Schillinger system of composition, etc.) is indeed required.  Without any reliable citations, the article as it stands is in blatant violation of Wikipedia's stated policies regarding neutrality and BLP. 174.16.3.174 (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I've worked in electronic music for over 30 years, have done sound design and foley in film sound, and worked in audio software...I've written a number of essays/articles about sound art and am highly regarded in my field. Just because you haven't heard of me doesn't mean I'm obscure! WTF? I did indeed start Silent Records, I've written and guest edited two issues of Contemporary Music Review in the UK, I'm on the advisory board of Interference Journal in Dublin, and why is ""psycho-spirituality" and "the consciousness of lab-grown meat." from my Twitter account even mentioned here? it seems an arrogant and snobbish statement by some computer geeks who don't know much about consciousness studies and how it affects music and sound art...*that's* your criteria for being taken seriously?! wow! how lame is that? :\ also, I didn't start this page - not sure exactly who did but I've tried to clean it up time allowing over the years - I don't do impersonations but can do some if paid enough money ;) Kim Cascone composer & writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anechoic (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC) — Anechoic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100935/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast He is also an artist on many significant labels which play a definitive part in cutting edge and contemporary music history: hermetic, anechoicmedia, Silent Records, Sub Rosa, Ritornell, Raster-Noton, C74. http://cycling74.com/2005/09/13/an-interview-with-kim-cascone/ http://hermetic.com/anthology/profile/kim-cascone/
 * Keep - hey guys...not sure why my page is being considered for deletion - I am not an obscure composer and I am somewhat offended to be refereed to as such by people outside of my genre - I've never heard of Orange Mike either!
 * Keep I do apologize for not being more familiar with wikipedia's policies and editing interface, but Kim is listed as assistant sound editor for the film 'Wild At Heart', a very well-known film by a very significant director:

But really, i shouldn't have to learn the policies and editing interface of wikipedia... because if you want someone without bias, wikipedia itself should implement a system whereby an unbiased stranger to his work would do the proper not-just-limited-to-big-brother-google search and figure out exactly the same things i've come to know and appreciate about Kim Cascone's contribution to contemporary art. So my solution is this, since it's really a matter of wikipedia having a bad system of verification subject to the whims of mainstream-and-outdated users and media links, next time i see a banner at the top of the page telling me that wikipedia needs my help, i will look for the Kim Cascone page first, and if it's not there, i'm happy to let wikipedia fend for itself. -Raja The Resident Alien (someone you probably don't care about who donates to wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajatheresidentalien (talk • contribs) 22:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)  — Rajatheresidentalien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep I for the life of me cannot see why this is marked for deletion. Kim is a respected artist and acadmic who's papers such The Asthetics of failure and interviews The microsound scene are used in texts in Post graduate studies in many Universities such as UTS Sydney for the study of New Media Asthetics. Disputing Kim working with David Lynch speaks volumes when a simple search of IMDB reveals his work  What is the intent of the deletion? Promoting ignorance of the importance of this mans work? Or simply a personal grudge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickypann (talk • contribs)  — Rickypann (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. The issue is not whether Cascone is an "obscure" composer, or whether he believes that all cells have consciousness.  Consensus among physiologists is that they do not, but with respect to the article in question, the point is moot.  That said, I am not the editor who proposed the deletion, but I see many reasons why it shouldn't be a part of Wikipedia.  What is wrong with this article is simple.  It does not follow standard Wikipedia guidelines regarding Biographies of Living Persons, insofar as it lacks even the barest number of reliable citations.  It is, as of this writing, a collection of external references accompanied by numerous claims which have no substantiating links from reliable news sources.  Plain and simple.  I didn't see anyone disputing Cascone's work with David Lynch; what I witnessed was someone (rightfully) expecting an authenticating citation where none existed.  A single listing on IMDb is not, by Wikipedia's standards, in and of itself a reason to keep the article.  It must both adhere to Wikipedia's strict policy regarding verifiability, including several, independent citations from reputable news sources, and also be written in a style that is NPOV.  As it is now, and as has been pointed out, much of the information in the article cannot be (or has not yet been) reliably sourced, and therefore are in direct violation of Wikipedia's policy.  I'm sure that Kim is a wonderful guy.  That is not the problem here.  This is obviously a vanity article containing a TON of personal information that is, thus far, unverified, and that alone is reason enough for deletion.  Again, refer to Wikipedia's longstanding policy regarding reliable sources and correct the article.  For now, it's a self-authored biography by a self-proclaimed person of import.  This is not to suggest that Mr.Cascone isn't notable.  Only that his notability has yet to be established in keeping with Wikipedia's well-established protocol.  108.92.172.8 (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — 108.92.172.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Once again, I'd like to point out that the current state of the article has not bearing on notability. I have in fact, now added one source to the article.  However, it would take a lot of work to clean this article up.  AFD is not cleanup.  We are here to determine if inclusion criteria are met, and I do not see any statement in your arguments for deletion explaining why any of the material presented in this AFD discussion would not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Look at the editing history of the article, and tell me with a straight face that most of the biographical information wasn't provided by the artist himself. This flies in the face of Wikipedia's NPOV stance, and is precisely why I take issue with the article.  I did not propose deletion, nor was I the first to notice problems with the article, but without meaningful revisions and additional citations, my vote is still "delete."  Cascone may well meet the minimum notability requirements, but if he's personally responsible for a majority (or a good portion) of the edits, which is apparently the case, then there is a conflict of interest.  108.92.172.8 (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Consensus among physiologists is that they do not" - citation please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:E00:1C0:348E:65D5:697C:1B8F (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory 108.92.172.8 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Serious guys, is this a Joke? I ve seen much worse articles than this one on wiki, why is n t it marked for improvements or "citations needed?" I dont really get this, but it is embarrasing. Feels like someone with some personal objections wants the article deleted, this doesnt sound very cientific to me ... Soldateska (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — Soldateska (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - His article on the aesthetics of failure is one of the most-cited articles in computer music and is standard reading for music undergraduate students. It has been reprinted in numerous texts aimed at students. The article does need editing, but the subject is certainly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcchutch (talk • contribs) 12:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)  — Drcchutch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I'm not a spa, I just forgot my password for my previous account, celesteh1 Drcchutch (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment As pertains to notability, every statement regarding Cascone's history must be properly sourced. I now see three sources, which is the bare minimum allowed for inclusion in Wikipedia.  As has been mentioned, I would be willing to change my opinion to "weak keep" if a couple of extra citations were added.  Until this morning, there wasn't even a section for references, and the bibliography section has only recently been added.  Until now, there were only two sections: "discography" and "external links," neither of which are crucial.  The article, again, reads like a vanity article.  If we are to believe from this discussion that user Anechoic is Cascone himself (he freely acknowledges it) then he himself is responsible for a tremendous number of edits of this article over the years.  That is the very definition of a vanity article, regardless of whether or not the subject is notable.  The article still contains MANY statements that require independent citations for verification.  In fact, almost NONE of the claims made in the article are properly sourced, from Cascone's education, to much of his work history, to his recent pursuits in music, to his interest in the Schillinger system.  These kinds of statements should be regarded as contentious unless properly sourced.  Period.  An interview on a website is not a proper citation by Wikipedia's standards, and never has been.  The article has been improved somewhat; however, again, one only needs to look at the edit history to see who is responsible for a significant amount of the information included.   108.92.172.8 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) — 108.92.172.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Reply - "[E]very statement regarding Cascone's history must be properly sourced" does not pertain to notability; it pertains to verifiability. Given the conflict of interest, I agree that all of the material needs to be meticulously sourced.  But that does not negate the fact that the coverage of his work shows that general notability guidelines have been met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - I apologize for the misstatement; nonetheless, my opinion stands. The notability guidelines have BARELY been met, as Wikipedia states "[a] person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," while this article, as of my previous comment, had only three reliable citations.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.172.8 (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just cleaned out a bunch of cruft from the article but what's left (e.g. the passages in this book including the quote "Cascone is probably the most famous microsound artist in the world") convinces me that he really does pass WP:GNG. The spa party going on here and the strong pattern of promotional and autobiographical edits to the article make me think that page protection and a sockpuppet investigation may be warranted, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - While the page definitely needed tightening up with revisions and referencing it's looking a lot better than it has done in the past. I personally find the mention of "sockpuppets" rather distasteful: I believe what you are seeing here is the academic and musical community coming together to defend the valuable contributions that Kim Cascone has made to electronic music. In my own university school, Kim's 'Aesthetics of Failure' paper was established as a document for discussion on our undergraduate 'Music in Context' module long before I arrived, and, as other commentators here have noted, is part of many undergraduate and post-graduate syllabi. For a paper to have 180+ citations in other academic literature is something of an achievement and represents a seminal piece of work and - as Scholar indicates - it has been cited in works by a number of academics respected in the fields of electronic and computer music such as Leigh Landy and Nick Collins. Although an independent artist without academic affiliation, Kim is respected amongst practitioners of electronic music (academic and otherwise) for his theoretical contributions as well as his workshops. I do sympathise with Wikipedia editors and would agree that the article as originally tagged for deletion was not up to scratch. I hope with edits and citations a 'keepable' version will emerge in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. — PLegard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. PLegard (talk) 09:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply - Distasteful? It's perfectly appropriate, as Mr. Cascone is one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) contributor to this article, a fact that no one knew until Cascone outed himself in this discussion.  Whether he intended to deceive everyone is up to debate, but one can see why having people edit their own biographical entries would be a problem, no matter how essential their musings on electronic music may or may not be.  108.92.172.8 (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Two of the five citations come from ambientmusicguide.com. As I understand it, websites such as these are not reliable news sources, leaving us with three reliable citations, again, the bare minimum required by Wikipedia. Can someone find something else on Cascone? 108.92.172.8 (talk) 14:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ARTIST and identified sources. -- Trevj (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep while this article badly needs a visit from the WP:GOCE, this person does meet the requirements for WP:ARTIST, WP:MUSBIO, as well as WP:COMPOSER. Technical 13 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2013 (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.