Ric Dalby – I'd love to say that DRV could overrule arbcom (notably because I regularly close DRVs and am not a member of arbcom :)), that being said the question is no longer relevant given that the injunction is over. Deletion endorsed. Please return with an improved draft in userspace. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Comment the injunction as I read it doesn't prevent creation of original articles, so I'm not entirely sure what's being asked here. Sure you'd need to be careful that any article isn't substantially the same as the deleted article which could be seen as an un-delete, but that'd fall under speedy criteria G4 anyway. Even if that's not how it's supposed to be interpreted, WP:DRV cannot overrule arbcom, if you want arbcom to clarify their injunction, ask on the arbcom pages not here. I would guess the case is coming to an end fairly soon anyway. I would also note some of those were deleted for essentially being able to create a substantial article on the character given available sources, rather than being an copy from elsewhere --81.104.39.63 (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe that DRV can overrule the Arbcom, since the community always can as a matter of right. This is particularly the case since DRV and AfD are consensual content venues, the two golden lines the committee is not empowered to cross. I've raised this matter with the committee, and Newyorkbrad has indicated that, if the case does not close imminently, he will seek to alter or remove the injunction. In the meantime, if that does not happen, I'd suggest we start ignoring it as out-of-date and out-of-place. Splash - tk13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These have been through the mill so many times each and at each stage have failed to survive as standalone articles, or have been deleted outright. Only one(ish) of the rounds of deletion was due to copyright problems, the others were straightforward. Endorse since the nominator is not making a case that anything has changed since the articles were last considered (and indeed, nothing has changed). Splash - tk13:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Closing admin opted to keep the article on the grounds that since the article was sourced (from the band's website and fansites) it was not crystal ballism, ignoring that there was no independant coverage of the album to demonstrate notability. —Hello, ControlHello, Tony15:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The two keep opinions by article contributors merely assert that it is "useful information" and one source being "approved by the band as official". The five deletes (including the nom) are at least partly based on sound arguments such as the lack of independent sources. --Tikiwont (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Tikiwont and Hellow Control who both said it well. Closer seems to have closed with an opinion of what he wanted the result to have been, not what the discussion acutally said. Should have participated, not closed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough gents, go ahead and delete. I merely thought that the notability was strong enough to transfer over in this particular case, especially given this album seems to have a greater chance of actually surfacing than most of the non-notable future albums we get. GlassCobra01:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I was working on the article to improve it and address the notability concerns which caused it to be deleted per CSD A7: could it please be restored to my userspace so I can work on it and make a decent article out of it, please? VoxHumana8'13:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
"Almost certainly the subject"? I can assure you I'm not. LPC is an anonymous comedian with a huge underground fanbase and 20+ years of recordings to his name. I'm just a fan. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question? - notability (per WP:NN) is established by a topic having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." - can the nominator provide evidence of such coverage (not trivial mentions such as in [1]). Guest9999 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here is an interview with LPC from The Nerve magazine. Another interview with Mark Prindle. An interview in the LA Record. His Allmusic page. And here's a link to the record label that sells his albums along with the Longmont page on another record label that carries one of his releases. Sorry if you're looking for a Newsweek article or something, but I doubt he's ever had that kind of coverage. I'll be the first to admit Longmont doesn't exactly appeal to the mainstream. But there are plenty of Wikipedia pages that cover less notable artists. Google "Longmont Potion Castle" and you'll see a lot of support for this guy. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with interviews is that whilst thye may be published by a reliable source the factual content is usually largely provided by the subject (not independent and not a reliable source) so is not always verifiable. Have there been any reviews or other features in reliable, independent publications? Guest9999 (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but I still see interviews used as sources all the time on Wikipedia. But here's what I could find in terms of features and reviews: A capsule review in The Denver Westword, a short article on Longmont's live show in the LA Record, and reviews of nearly all of LPC's records at author Mark Prindle's website here. Like I said, there isn't a whole lot of coverage out there, but it seems like enough attention to warrant the small wiki that I had set up. Sayitaintjoe (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per the above interviews and articles. Wouldn't create individual articles for every single album though. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
