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 of recreation (avoid salting). Article as it stood offered nothing I could apply WP:MUSIC to. — Ocatecir ^T 01:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick DeMeyer[edit]

This was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick De Meyer but has been subject to numerous speedy deletions and recreations. Two of the references are broken but, in any case, I still don't see significant secondary sources so Delete view. Bridgeplayer 15:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Patrick de Mayer was a member of of Technotronic, one of the biggest techno bands of the late 80's early 90's and a pioneer of techno music. He has also been a member of several other notable bands and is a notable composer and has scored the soundtrack to at least one film. Just because the article has been deleted before for not being up to standard does not automatically classify it for deletion as Patrick de Mayer does pass notability. (Note it was restored by the deleting admin). I really don't see your point Bridgeplayer? I think you are just being facitious.128.40.76.3 15:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of the references support these claims. For example note 3, that claims to support the Technotronic membership is broken. Bridgeplayer 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt the Earth: Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V. Since this has been recreated twice already, it seems like salting is needful. RGTraynor 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that all the links don't work is problematic, but if we assume good faith the guy looks notable to me. I'd like to see a birthdate included, there may be more than one Patrick DeMayer. Capmango 19:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not that experienced around here but my understanding is that we can't keep an article by assuming good faith but that it is a question that we need reliable sources to substantiate the claims in the article. Bridgeplayer 19:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is dead on accurate. We take no article on just plain good faith. Reliable sources and verification, yes. RGTraynor 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply sigh. I'll try to clarify what I thought was clear from the context of my remarks: I was not saying we take it on faith that the man is notable. The problem is that the links in this aritcle that would establish notability are broken. I was saying we should assume good faith that those links are not bogus, but rather outdated or mistyped, and we should allow the author a chance to correct the links, rather than just assuming the links must be bogus and deleting the article. Capmango 22:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have fixed the 2 bad links.[1] The only problem was that they contained the pipe that should only be in internal wikilinks. PrimeHunter 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it already has been deleted (twice, even). Bring it up on WP:DRV if something new can be found. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just a bit of history... it was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick De Meyer, then went through DRV where JzG (talk · contribs) pointed out that the article was missing citations. It was recreated at Patrick DeMeyer with citations. I speedy deleted this as a recreation after it was tagged as such. After a conversation with the creator, it appeared that there was an assertion per WP:MUSIC of meeting the first criteria for composers, sourced to Allmusic.com. Thus I restored the article because speedy deletion was not a valid option in this case. I have no opinion on retention or deletion, but deleting again simply because this is a recreation probably is not a valid rationale. Deletion or retention should be based solely on the determination whether this meets WP:MUSIC and whether or not the assertions of meeting the criteria are adequately sourced.--Isotope23 13:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm struggling to see where this person passes WP:MUSIC or, for that matter, WP:N. Simply does not appear to be notable. The odd trivial mention, but that's it. Moreschi ^Talk 18:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.