Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Ivie


 * 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 without prejudice to recreation (if sourced). - Philippe 19:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger Ivie

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

This article was wholly unreferenced, from June 2006 until 19 March this year, failing wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. One ref was added on 19 March, a link to the artist's own website. 21 months is quite long enough for independent references to be have been added to establish notability per WP:BIO, but they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as non-notable. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC) What your FIXIT argument seems to suggest is that so long as the subject is notable enough to merit an article, than it doesn't actually matter whether it is referenced, as required by WP:V, because it's nice to have something on the subject. I don't buy this: this is not myspace or a newspaper opinion column where any old set of words will do so long as they expand the column of text down to the bottom of the page, it is is an encyclopedia whose content is based on the principles of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, because your argument seems to be that verifiability is not actually fundamental, just something which would be nice if some day someone ever feels like applying it here ... no deadline, just a vague aspiration. If that's really the case, we should stop calling WP:V a policy and downgrade it to an essay. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This article needs better sourcing and some rewriting, true, but subject strongly notable per WP:MUSIC. Article needs improvement, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply It has already had nearly two years for notability to be demonstrated by referencing, and in that time has been clearly tagged as needing that attention. This article doesn't demonstrate notability, but there's no barrier to a new article being created in future if someone wants to reference it to reliable sources which can establish notability. WP:V isn't some tedious novelty, it's fundamental to wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia, and this article doesn't make the grade. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep subject appears to meet WP:MUSIC. If article doesn't, that a WP:SOFIXIT problem.  Hobit (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC) delete I agree with BHG at this point, I can't source this.Hobit (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT is a redirect to Be bold, which is all about improving an article &mdash; the opening sentence says "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc." However, improvement is not the process to apply when something is rotten to the core, as the case with an article referenced only its subject's own website. The solution in that case is a complete rebuild, and what's the point in keeping the old debris in the way?
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, apparently fails WP:MUSIC; sum total of what AllMusic has is |IVIE&sql=11:0pfuxqw0ldse~T3 a single song by the Dixie Cadillacs, who have no article here and don't appear to meet WP:MUSIC themselves. No evidence there of the Billboard chart hits, not enough in any event. --Dhartung | Talk 03:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know how I came across this AfD. So it seems this articles was started by Argaylord, and then, his contribs Special:Contributions/Argaylord. Seems like this article is only notable per 1 person. Not very useful then.. Neal (talk) 01:50, 1 April 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.