Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Pit (2nd nomination)


 * 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. While I appreciate all editors' comments, and while I do agree that guidelines are only guidelines, I don't think that YouTube hits/Google hits help. Algorithmic search results, while useful, rarely prove notability; see here. m.o.p 13:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Pit
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a declined G4. Sources and content have improved over the last two years, but I remain unconvinced that the subject is notable. I was unable to locate significant, substantial coverage meeting the WP:GNG and would like the community to look over what sourcing is available in case I missed something. Dloh cierekim  18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep − The subject seems notable given the fact that his area of music is not main stream. He has several releases with Armada Music, which is well known trance label based in the Netherlands. A quick search on Youtube brings up many hits. I'm confident that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a good start. But do we have reliable sources giving significant coverage. Can we be sure of Armada meeting WP:Music? Dloh cierekim  13:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's only necessary to meet one criteria from WP:MUSICBIO. Having released a record on a major label is enough to suggest notability. I get more than 3 million hits when I google "Armada music".


 * Delete - no non-trivial, independent coverage has been presented; what is there are things like this or like this, which are meaningless in terms of sourcing for articles. That he's released a single with Armada is thus far irrelevant (see WP:GHITS for why the claimed importance of that label remains undemonstrated), and in any case, WP:MUSICBIO requires having released " two or more " albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels, and even then, the subject "may be" (not "is") notable. Mr. Pit has a long way to go before he reaches even that threshold. - Biruitorul Talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't his record label independent? He's clearly influential in his area, e.g. take a look here . Also, he seems to have released four records with the label, not just one or two. Searching for him on Youtube brings up many hits including live recordings from large American dance events. This isn't some teen rock band playing out of their mum's garage. He's an international act. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the releases mentioned in the article are signed to some of the most notable Trance Music labels. Here is a source from the independent record label Spinnin Records showing an upcoming release by the subject. In addition, you could also check the DJ Mag review of one of the subject's track. Wkpdinfo (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I ignored it the first time you mentioned it, but it bears repeating now that this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", and so Youtube searches have nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you want to argue that a corporate biography from his publisher constitutes evidence he passes one WP:MUSICBIO criterion, which would thus imply he may be notable, fine, but let's leave the Youtube searches out of the discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but they do. The guidelines are just that: guidelines. Apply the rule of common sense. The Youtube videos give evidence of his activities. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, published sources", so a Youtube search can never indicate notability or lack thereof. It's your right to dismiss WP:RS, but you're in a distinct minority in doing so, and consensus is against you. (You want to try citing one of those videos at WP:FAC and see if the article gets promoted?) Also, WP:V happens to be a policy, one that stresses at length how we should avoid "sources" of the nature you're touting. Indeed, you haven't even tried to point to a particular video as evidence of notability, but have merely made airy references to "Youtube searches". I'm surprised anyone should think that would have any contextual relevance in this discussion. - Biruitorul Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop passing judgements about me and my motives. I am not dismissing WP:RS. I am suggesting that we suppliant it with common sense. You refuse to apply the rule of common sense and instead hide behind the guidelines. A classic case of WP:LAWYER. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  13:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop giving me orders, for a change, and stop seeing things that aren't there. Either we are a project based on reliable, published sources, or we admit whatever spamlinks and cruft Fly by Night may consider it's "common sense" to do so, and tarnish those who wish to uphold a higher standard as "lawyering", "hiding behind the guidelines" and "passing judgements". I choose the former. - Biruitorul Talk 21:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh the sweet irony. You order me to stop giving you orders. Sir, yes Sir. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep − All Mr. Pit Coldharbour Recordings releases are still under Armada Music whose sublabel it is. I'm also confident subject meets WP:MUSICBIO having work appeareances on notable compilation albums in his area of music, I also found these links Wkpdinfo (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Wkpdinfo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Dloh  cierekim  21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Dlohcierekim, that's a bit harsh. The account was only registered three days ago . Almost all new accounts do exactly that. New editors edit articles in subjects they know the most about before broadening their horizons. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe they're just here to self-promote, with no intention of actually contributing anything else to the project? - Biruitorul Talk 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wondering if your point of view is neutral due to the fact you contributed significant on the deletion of the first version of this article. As mentioned in the debating article, the subject's works are featured on notable album compilations, which are separate featured as distinct Wikipedia articles, his work is reviewed by (at least) a notable electronic music magazine, those arguments should be enough for subject to meet WP:MUSICBIO, still according to that, failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Besides that, Google returns over 1.8 milion hits for Mr. Pit. As long as for this example, the reference is valid, the same website source should be considered notable for the subject of this article. Nevertheless, thinking about the article is self-promotion is not a neutral thinking but a strong reason to believe that is negativism. Wkpdinfo (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The article's only response to previous comments on lack of independent sources: spamlinks and cruft. No, these o not show notability, just persistence, and a disregard for the spirit of our WP:RS policies. Not to mention the letter of our WP:MUSIC requirements. Dahn (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2011 (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.