Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ModyWorks


 * 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   Userfy. Already moved to User:Bech86/ModyWorks. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ModyWorks

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

No notability by WP:CORP. Sources are a mixture of blogs, stores, user edited and primary sources. No other reliable sources found. Article creator removed prod calling it "vandalism". Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I, the creator of the article, did remove prod and called it vandalism because the sources used for references are reliable, they do establish very clearly the notability of the subject. I, and other editors, have been editing and adding more references over the past year on this article, and will continue to do so until the discussion is closed. I did call the actions of the user who put the prod "vandalism" because he goes out of his way to "just" nominate articles I've created, or edited, for deletion. His actions seems more like a personal vendetta. Bech86 (talk) 06:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the sources do you consider to be reliable sources? The claim I just nominate articles you have created is clearly not true. I nominated four other articles not by you that same day. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My claims against you are absolutely true. Nominating four other articles for deletion did not keep you from nominating ALL of the articles I created or/and edited over the past year for deletion as well. Which of the sources do I consider to be WP:RS? For a starter having links to stores only establish the verifiability of a commercial release. All reliable articles on albums, singles, EPs on Wikipedia do incorporate stores as sources for references. The same goes for reviews and interviews. All of the sources I used for references in the articles I created or/and edited, most of them reviews, interviews, stores, and yes blogs, are reliable, verifiable, third parties sources. Bech86 (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "ALL of the articles I created or/and edited over the past year"? how about Vinyl Life, My Tronic, Nu Nite, EP (Nite Club EP) or Nite Club. I didn't nominate them. Read through WP:RS to get a better idea of what are and are not reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. You did not nominate recent articles I created and edited, Vinyl Life, My Tronic, Nu Nite, EP (Nite Club EP) or Nite Club, but you sure did start contesting articles I am involved with with Vinyl Life. An article I created, a stub, that was immediately nominated for deletion by a user Per Ardua who coincidentally decided to "leave" Wikipedia right after nominating the article for deletion. Leaving you as the ONLY user contesting the verifiability of the article, who is still a stub and in need of expansion.Bech86 (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Understand something here: stubbing is NOT meant to be used to give the article unlimited time to establish notability. Notability should have been established even before you entered the article's first letter. Notability comes before the creation of an article. Groink (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. The sources presented don't seem to be proving notability, but only existence (which is not in doubt). Proof of major exposure should be presented. McMarcoP (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm very much behind Duffbeerforme on all of his points. But I'll add one more thing: Bech86 is definitely a WP:SPA. He may not be using his account for just this one article, but the other articles he's created - and virtually WP:OWN touches on the idea that his contributions touches WP:POV. Study the history log for this article - leaving out the vandals, Bech86 is really the only editor. If this subject was in fact notable, you would naturally have at least four or five other editors making constructive contributions. But you don't have that here, hence WP:OWN. If this editor has a personal attachment to the subject at-hand, I have problems with that. We're supposed to be creating articles as a way to learn about subjects - and not to write about subjects we might find ourselves as experts, and end up becoming primary sources. Groink (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogs aren't rs, and press coverage not indicated. The Weak Willed 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per above, no indication of reliable sources being able to confirm the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 21 August 2009 (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.