Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Dynamix


 * 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. This might be a useful link for future reference. Neıl   ☄   11:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Dynamix

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article about a DJ says he he is notable because he is on an industry list of DJs and has been doing it for 15 years. I don't believe that a car mecahnic who was recognised by his industry for the quality of his work would be notable merely for his work, nor do I think a DJ would be. Unless there are reliable third part sources testifying to his notability I think this should be deleted. Grahame (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Grahame (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - According the Hobart Mercury With sales approaching two million units, no Australian DJ has sold more compilations than Dynamix, whose 2006 Ministry of Sound The Annual mix became the country's highest-selling compilation. - appears at the top of the game. I think I can see over 200 newspaper entries (from around Australia and as far away as LA) that at least mention him - quite a few with significant commentary. I do find lines like "26 mix CDs under his belt" lead to amusing visuals though - Peripitus (Talk) 02:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - do you have a link for that? -- Mark Chovain 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article consists entirely of unsourced information.  It was created 2 years ago, and was tagged "no references or citations" 1 year ago, but still there are no references or in-line citations.  The creator of the article made 2 further edits but has been inactive ever since, so there is little likelihood he or she will return to add references or citations.  If Mark Dynamix is notable in accordance with WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC it is the responsibility of the article's creator, or some other sponsors of the article, to demonstrate that notability in the article using verifiable sources.  This has not happened in 2 years.  Unverified information can be deleted from WP so there is another ground for this entire article to be deleted.  Dolphin51 (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources NOW, even for a year, is not a valid reason for deletion...if it were I could easily delete ten thousand articles today..it is a reason to search for and add those sources. This debate is not whether the article is in a poor state (it is) but whether the subject is suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Anyone, including yourself, could do a news/web search and add good references - Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Lack of refs in the article, and the existence of clean-up tags are bad reasons for deletion. "Unverified information" need not be removed (except contentious claims in BLPs); it's "Unverifiable information" that should be removed.  That said, I'm not sure reliable sources exist for this one, so I question the verifiability. -- Mark Chovain 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * COMMENT: Regarding those "ten thousand articles" that 'Peripitus' mentions could be deleted, you can actually challenge and delete unreferenced information, even from non-bios. If the only information in an article is lifted from unreliable sources, I think that would be grounds for deletion, as there is then no content worthy of retaining. Deleted articles can be resurrected at a later date if someone wants to do the hard work and add some reliable / sourced information.-- Lester  03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a long standing tradition here that lack of sources in the article (a reason for adding them) is very different from lack of sources available to be in the article (a reason for deleting). Checkout OTHERSTUFF. What I mean by 10,000 is that there are easily this many articles here, older than this one, with no references at all and tagged as such - Peripitus (Talk) 04:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I'm not seeing any reliable sources here. I'm seeing blog posts containing the quote, but certainly nothing reliable.  Will change my !vote if anyone can find reliable sources. -- Mark Chovain 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look now - Peripitus (Talk) 05:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I'd be happier with online-accessible refs (to aid verifiability), but I reckon this is enough to get it over the line. -- Mark Chovain 05:22, 26 August 2008 (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.