Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trendsetter production discography


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Trendsetter production discography

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The discography is woefully incomplete; mostly a bunch of TBD. Additionally there is no article for the producer so a list is not appropriate. My76Strat (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete agree with the nom. The article doesn't belong here.. no sources, no verifiability, not even a decent attempt at any kind of article. Till 03:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Not only is the article completely unsourced and full of TBD, the producer of said songs doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. Statυs  (talk) 03:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to extenuate some detail regarding this nomination. Firstly I align myself as an inclusionist and prefer seeing an article achieve inclusion criteria. I always consider WP:BEFORE and if it is possible to bring the article to standard, that is what I will do.This compounds because I am a member of WikiProject Record Production and extend a full measure of allegiance to the topic; that much more! I state these facts primarily because I realize the editors commenting here are knowledgeable of this topic and felt compelled to send an invitation to join. The secondary reason for this post is to give assurance that this particular list simply fails standards at every level. My76Strat (talk) 04:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. The absence of an article about the producer himself is irrelevant. However I was unable to find any suitable sources for the information in the list. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a fine rationale Axl. I disagree the lack of notability measured against the producer is irrelevant. My76Strat (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not state that "lack of notability measured against the producer is irrelevant". The absence of a Wikipedia article about the producer is not evidence of lack of notability. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  00:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Noted, and I stand corrected for putting forth an incomplete nomination, for it should have stated that the producer's article was deleted, and not simply nonexistent. I presume we could agree that a deletion does lend measure against notability. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC) (signature is now piping my nick)
 * If the article about the producer was deleted due to lack of notability, that would be circumstantial evidence. It is unlikely that a non-notable producer would have a notable production list, but I would still be cautious about WP:WAX. In my opinion, each article should be evaluated on its own merit for notability. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete G8. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2012 (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.