Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Digital Gangster LP


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Digital Gangster LP

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

no reliable sources to attest to its notability Theserialcomma (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Clear violation of WP:POINT with a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom. Per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." Theserialcomma's nominations of Nerdrap Entertainment System and The Digital Gangster LP for AfD are clearly intended to be disruptive and are a continuation of the disruption surrounding the YTCracker article. See: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents YTCracker's article survived AfD and has been rewritten to include plenty of sources despite Theserialcomma's attempts to gut the article.  Theserialcomma continued to edit war over the YTCracker article even during the AfD --Tothwolf (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I made no "accusations" and I backed up what I've stated about Theserialcomma's behaviour regarding these articles with diffs. If you want to talk about failure to assume good faith, your comment above "... and protect since obviously anons think that their love of the album supersedes any policies" shows that you are doing just that. Tothwolf (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no reliable sources, fails notability guidelines, most relevantly that for albums.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC, I can't find any reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect to YTCracker and protect since obviously anons think that their love of the album supersedes any policies. No evidence of notability, search on google turns up sales sites, the DG webpage, blogs, twitters and the like.  No evidence of reviews in reliable, secondary sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This "anon" doesn't love the album (never heard it), just thinks deletion policy should be followed instead of you bypassing this process and trying to redirect after a call for deletion discussion had already been requested. LOL at your talk of policy when you didn't want this deletion policy to even take place and tried to insert your will over WP.  Us crazy DG lovin anons, wanting Wikipedia Policy to be followed! --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a blatant personal attack, and I demand that you refactor that above comment. I will place the appropriate warning on your talk. MuZemike 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I demand you learn what a personal attack is. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep (Changed to redirect, still a pointy nomination)
 * Note the word may in that sentence, as well as the first line of that section "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - find sources that document coverage of the album and it will not be deleted. Your accusation against TSC is in bad faith, uncivil and ignores the five other editors who !voted to delete.  To remain a separate page, it needs reliable, independent, secondary sources.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly others also feel it passes the notability guidelines
 * either you are purposely lying, or you are mistaken. i nominated these articles for deletion long before another editor nominated YTCracker. check the log and apologize. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Theserialcomma, I believe you are the one who is either mistaken or you are lying and attempting to mislead people here.
 * YTCracker was nominated for AfD on 03:04, 23 May 2009
 * Your edit warring on YTCracker took place 11:11-11:26, 25 May 2009
 * When you hit 3RR, you made a false report to AN/I in an attempt to get the other editors blocked: 11:29, 25 May 2009
 * You nominated The Digital Gangster LP for AfD at 20:25, 25 May 2009
 * --Tothwolf (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

learn2wiki. i never "hit" 3rr. 3rr means 4 reverts, and i reverted 3x. as for everything else you said, you're wrong again. i reported the user and he was indef'd. win! then he came back, we all made up, and we are all happy. win again! and, by the way, dr. wikipedia, check the history of the articles in question to see the first time i really nominated it with a prod delete (hint: it was may 23rd, not the 25th). thank you, watch the civility, and welcome to wikipedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) So yes, you edit warred, made a false AN/I report, and then initiated this AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always discovering new Wiki stuff, but thanks for the encouragement. Hitting 3RR means you made 3 reverts, violating 3RR would have been 4 or more reverts. Considering User:Ytcracker has since been unblocked that would mean he was not indef'd. Thanks for the welcome, however I've been active on Wikipedia in one form or another since sometime around 2002. Yes, I remember Larry. Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * as i said, learn2wiki. he was indef'd, period. that doesn't mean, in wikipedia terms, that it's forever. it just means he was indef'd. he was indeed unblocked, as i mentioned, and for this i am happy. furthermore, per WP:3RR "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," which means to "hit" 3rr, you must perform 4 reverts. 3 reverts isn't "hitting" anything, so don't be fooled by the "3" in the 3RR. enjoy! Theserialcomma (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR also states: "The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring."


 * Merge to YTcracker. Otherwise, there is very little, if anything, for independent notability. MuZemike 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment this is better attributed to MC Lars because he is a lot more famous than me. also, lol WP:CRYSTAL, but reviews from altpress and the like are supposed to pop up next month, so whatever.  Ytcracker (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to MC Lars per Ytcracker until the reviews are available. Tothwolf (talk) 12:56, 27 May 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.