Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samix

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samix

Samix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

non-notable music bio — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Was winner of a major music award and has produced several different hiphop albums, which is why I added him. Not sure how it's not notable? Especially as Josh Martinez has a wikipedia page himself. stan goldsmith 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The page does not meet the criteria layed out at WP:BAND. The producer of a notable musician is not automatically notable by association. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 22:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. —ShadowHalo 23:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whispering 23:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

this is what I put on the talk page, I think it's a reasonable argument for keeping this article:

part of why wikipedia is so great is that it contains info on many obscure bands, musicians, composers and djs like samix, similar artists on wikipedia include Living Legends, Josh Martinez, Retching Red, tilt, The Grouch, Skankin' Pickle, etc. etc. etc. (Particularly bands like Skankin Pickle and Tilt, who never really "made it" but are now broken up and no longer even in existence).

If this article is to be deleted then so are thousands of others, making the whole point of wikipedia moot. If someone is an influential underground artist, they need to be here, just as much, if not more, than Britney Spears or N.E.R.D.stan goldsmith 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability. One Night In Hackney 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete For reasons above, plus having myspace as an official site and thinking someone called "ghostshrimp" is illustrating the New York Times. Static Universe 18:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

uh...do your research there Static, here is ghostshrimp's website with his illustrations: http://www.ghostshrimp.net/ (list of some NYT illustrations here: http://www.ghostshrimp.net/pages/illustrations/pages/bookREVIEW.html) stan goldsmith 00:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :) Static Universe 07:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

also most every band playing music today has a myspace page, how is that evidence of anything stan goldsmith 00:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Static Universe's point is that a legitimately notable or "big" band would probably spring for their own domain. Myspace (in my experience, and I'm sure that of many other editors) is often synonymous with unheard-of, no-name bands. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. Static Universe 07:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, excuse me for saying so but every single band in the world right now has a myspace page, many exclusively so, I'm not sure if you are outdated or what, but that's the truth. Many bands rely exclusively on myspace for promotion, tour dates, networking and more, more so than their own websites nowadays (update for everyone!).... myspace is now, maybe before it was seen as lame, but now it's THE place...

sorry for the arguments, but using your guy's logic, most of the wikipedia database should be deleted....and please get up to date as to what's going on in the online world... stan goldsmith 20:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I never argued that possessing a myspace page should be an indicator for deletion - this article has plenty of valid reason to delete. But I definately contest the notion that every band has a myspace page - that is simply not true. — Swpb ^{talk contribs} 23:32, 7 January 2007 (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.