Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical Computer Music


 * 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. Nja 247 08:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Radical Computer Music

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

I'm not finding significant coverage of this in 3rd party sources. This is a self published book (Mort Aux Vaches Ekstra Extra). References provided are mostly to blogs. The author may be notable but this article doesn't appear to be. RadioFan (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Currently contributing to the development of the article about Radical Computer Music, I agree to your remarks, but this will all happen as I go along. I am in contact with Goodiepal about the issue and he is contributing with background info and sources. I hope you will allow the article to continue and only delete the article called Radical Computer Music, Mort Aux Vaches Ekstra Extra, which is a double. The Radical Computer Music article could potentially be merged with the Goodiepal article, but I have set it up separately as I find it is too comprehensive a subject to be included in the biographical article. Die Luzi (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now added references to the Radical Computer Music article as evidence of Goodiepal's theories - will this type satisfy Wikipedia's requirements? More references to follow. Die Luzi (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Third-party references have been added to the Radical Computer Music article. Die Luzi (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment blogs aren't considered 3rd party, and they make up a substantial number of references in that article. JamesBurns (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. List of Confirmed sock puppets of User:JamesBurns Untick (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that out of the 14 references, currently applied to the Radical Computer Music article, 4 of them refer to third-party sources, including profiled magazines such as The Wire and Frieze. 10 references source Goodiepal's own lectures and releases about the issue, only one of these making reference to a blog. As this is a particularly qualified blog, seriously elaborating Goodiepal's work, initiated by the notable Scottish musician Momus, I consider it a valid reference to make. Only one other blog is listed in the External Links section refering to a discussion of Radical Computer Music by Danish art critic Torben Sangild, a notable danish scholar/art critic. Die Luzi (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Both The Wire and Frieze have their archives online but I'm not finding the articles specified in either. There is no doubt that there is sufficient coverage of the artist to warrant an article, but not of this book.  Being a self-published book, it's going to be harder to find reliable sources covering it.  This article should be summarized, references cleaned up, and merged into Goodiepal.--RadioFan (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Both articles refered to have been printed in the respective magazines, hence my quotation, the following URL directs to the online archive of Frieze: http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/mort_aux_vaches_ekstra/ - with regards to The Wire, the article is not itself online but listed in the table of content, issue no. 298, found here: http://www.thewire.co.uk/issues/298/ If these references are still considered unsubstantiated and therefore cannot be accepted by Wikipedia, the article will be merged into the Goodiepal article. It is a pity though, as the topic is meeting great interest and currently is being taught in academia and discussed in scholarly work (yet to be published). Die Luzi (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for relisting the article for further discussion - I haven't developed it since my last comment, as I have been awaiting instructions regarding its chances of survival. If it will improve these, I will continue to develop the article with careful referencing - as my knowledge of Goodiepal's theory derives from numerous live/online performances, lectures, articles, interviews, and blogs, it is a bit of a puzzle to trace where everything has been disseminated first and last. Being in email contact with him, he is currently giving advice, and so I still hope the article can stay on Wikipedia! Die Luzi (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 10:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable and (so far) unestablished term for one man's approach to composing computer music. Yinta ɳ   11:09, 25 April 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.