Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikrosopht


 * 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. No prejudice against re-creation when notability can be established according to Wikipedian policies. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mikrosopht

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

Cannot turn up any sources to establish notability. Google only turns up this article and the article subject's social networking sites. Kelly hi! 12:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC) "'It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.'" Mikrosopht has released numerous albums on independent, reliable labels. See: --Ptyrrell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree, not notable, but google search does not really prove anything with notability, remember that. -- Lord    Sunday   13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly a Google test isn't the final arbiter of notability and has great potential for overuse, but for an article subject who bases his entire claim to notability on his founding of an internet record label and an e-zine, I'd say the distinct lack of Google hits demonstrates his lack of notability pretty effectively. ~ mazca  t 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:RS (by virtue of not having ANY sources) and WP:MUSIC on all counts. -- JediLofty UserTalk 13:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What if sources and a discography were included in the article?--Ptyrrell (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources would be excellent, depending on their reliability o'course. A discography would be good to improve the article if its notability is previously established, but isn't an argument towards keeping unless the said discog has more than one album on a major or significant indie label that previously weren't presented in the article.  tomasz.  16:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, obscurity and lack of reliable-source coverage makes this article apparently unsourceable, failing WP:V and WP:N. ~ mazca  t 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  09:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets first criteria for WP:MUSIC
 * 18 Improvisations on Digital Biotope
 * Several releases on Hippocamp label
 * Recent release with Atom™ on Rather Interesting
 * Comment. The first criterion you quoted ("subject of multiple non-trivial published works... and reliable") doesn't mean the musician should have released multiple works on a "reliable" record label (whatever one of those is). It means that multiple reliable secondary sources have talked about the band. The criterion about albums is the fifth, and it reads "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels", none of which this artist has.  tomasz.  16:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of Microsopht's music and bittunes. It would be a shame to lose this worthy listing. -danny

I've enjoyed and taken part in many GXL( Benjamin Kelley label )projects. The fact that his work could be considered obscure or underground does not make it unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. He's an active artist currently building a large body of work in electronic music. Why can't an encyclopedia ( especially an online one ) be a place of exploration and discovery of rarefied or not widely known information?--Malarts (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It can be such a place, but it still must have standards. Regarding music, ours are the notability criteria. The fact that anyone's music could be considered obscure or underground does not make it unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia (that's why we've lots of articles on obscure or underground bands), but the basic standards must still be met.  tomasz.  16:48, 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.