596:
2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your
Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Knowledge). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website.
849:
781:. The sources in the article are woefully inadequate for substantiating notability, being, at best, passing mentions of the subject in dubiously reliable sources, and my own searches, which include checking out the ones automatically linked by the nomination statement, find nothing in any reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject. Please note that this invalidates the ridiculous claim above that this discussion is subject to
806:
724:
589:
1177:. Sources are unreliable, especially internet forum posts and so on. Since this is an historical subject (1990s punk), if the label is/was notable, we should expect to read about it in several of the many books covering the topic. However, the only source I could find, "Punks: A Guide to an American Subculture", is conspicuous for
855:
CDaniels lists articles that he has created or contributed to on his user page, a common practice. This does not show that he has a COI with either this article or with
Carrite. Carrite's first edit is of no relevant to this discussion. Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is
887:
I agree with your plea to concentrate on discussion of whether the article is able to meet
Knowledge's article policies and guidelines, but that advice should be directed to all participants in this unseemly spat, on both "sides", not just 120.56.118.252. Nearly every comment above (apart from mine,
370:
I believe that a bad-faith nomination is an appropriate basis for retention: as I see it, discouraging disruption is more important than removing non-notable articles. Because neither of the editors supporting the nomination are able to nominate articles themselves, closing this as keep would not be
1181:
discussing it. The label's owner is mentioned only in one sentence, where he is quoted regarding the notability of a radio show/DJ. So in fact there seems to be a reliable source that indicates that it's not particularly notable! But that doesn't mean all the information must be discarded, and some
595:
You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on
Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in
282:
I explained my reasons for doubting the nominator's motivations in my recommendation. The nominator was recently indeffed over at
Commons for his disruptive behavior. Here, the editor has a very short contribution history consisting almost exclusively of nominating for deletion pages with admitted
267:
I don't know what's going on either. The nominator here also nominated another article whose notability has not been demonstrated and is not easily demonstrable, and so this must be a personal grudge? Unless anyone can substantiate the basis of these personal attacks against the nominator then I
471:
It's none of my business, but I wouldn't mind hearing the background on the nominator. Exactly one year ago from what? As another contributor has commented on the apparent impropriety of this nomination, I believe whatever you're willing to provide would be relevant to this discussion.
1206:
or AfD, should be the first line approach to article subjects that don't meet notability criteria, but still have useful information. If there are problems with it being reverted, by COI editors for example, that can be dealt with by the usual COI or content dispute procedures.
569:") to Criterion 2. My argument is not invalidated by the fact that we now have an uninvolved editor recommending deletion; however, as an argument not grounded in policy or guidelines, I expect the closer will give my position little, if any, weight.
617:- length of operation and number of releases involving notable bands indicates cultural significance. For what it's worth, this is one of the few punk labels I've actually heard of before being forced to learn about so many here in Wikipedialand.
355:
If you believe that the subject does not appear to be notable then why is there still a bolded "keep" by your contribution below? This discussion is about the article and its subject. Discussions about editor behaviour belong elsewhere.
309:
Why shouldn't anyone look for COIs by
Knowledge administrators, and nominate articles for deletion when the sources don't stack up? People do the same with people who are not Knowledge administrators and are congratulated for doing so.
730:
Why are you shying away from speaking of their reliability ? It is certainly a serious problem if
Knowledge insiders are allowed special privileges when it comes to articles about non-notable selves or their non-notable organisations.
328:
that the nominator has made this series of nominations to retaliate or to prove some point, and I find it difficult to believe that this is the nominator's first or only account. Moreover, I wasn't aware that we congratulated
708:- Nominator appears to be going through articles with declared COIs and nominating them for deletion without checking sources. The sources used here are certainly independent, though I can't speak of their reliability. —
745:
What sources are there that you claim that the nominator hasn't checked? The ones in the article seem to be pretty junky, and well below the standard demanded for sourcing of articles outside the
Anglosphere, such as
182:
238:
873:, I repeat "Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Knowledge's article policies and guidelines." Talk of first edits, and DUCKS, and BOOMERANGS is not doing that. --
762:). There may be some history with the nominator that I'm unaware of but I see no reason why we can't discuss this nomination on its merits rather than assume bad faith on the part of the nominator.
521:
point 2. In my estimation, the article's notability is debatable—not clearly lacking, not obviously established—but I do not believe it's appropriate to reach that question under the circumstances.
832:
shows a remarkable familiarity of
Knowledge sintax. So who is the founder of this business Timbo Chandler or Timbo Davenport needs to be resolved in view of acuracy of encylcopedia. Thank you
389:
Of course I can nominate an article for deletion - I simply have to register a silly pseudonym rather than reveal where I am editing from. I'm sure that wouldn't take more than a few seconds.
52:. Disruptive nomination made by socking user, riddled with a very suspicious amount of anonymous IPs. If a proper request is required, please feel free to open one after this close.
449:- It could be sourced but I don't care much about Socky the Grudgester coming back to WP after registering exactly one year ago to settle some score. Delete it or not, whatever.
530:
speak for themselves: few new users begin their editing careers by nominating articles for deletion. But far more troubling is his record on
Commons, where his account has been
1018:
and Draft to someone who needs it if at all as my searches found nothing better and this could still need improvements but I'm not convincingly seeing how these can be made.
751:
176:
1147:- Although this is currently troubled with votes, I still should note this currently still questionable for the needed improvements....regardless of any user troubles.
995:
975:
759:
216:
Promotional article for personal (failed) business of a Knowledge user who has edited this article extensively. Sources cited are unreliable and insufficient for
135:
935:
955:
142:
108:
103:
112:
688:
651:
527:
1098:
889:
790:
786:
763:
390:
357:
311:
269:
95:
817:
1211:
should be reserved for articles that are clearly completely useless, and a formal AfD for notability should only be considered if
425:
197:
164:
17:
324:
You twist my words. I'm not objecting to editors who choose to pursue sysop-involved COI issues. Instead, I'm saying that it
1190:. Taken together, they are a notable subject, and the articles contain much valuable information. I would suggest creating
70:
1183:
1182:
of the sources could be used as citations for facts, if not for notability. A large proportion of the articles in the
633:
334:
257:
158:
1212:
1199:
1195:
1117:
1045:
908:
820:
and the alleged owner of the business is "Timbo Chandler". CDaniels account (from his user page) appears to have a
812:
I never claimed article is create by 'Carrite'. In actualment the creation and early edits for this article are by
1243:
922:
40:
1224:
1165:
1137:
1106:
1084:
1065:
1036:
1007:
987:
967:
947:
926:
897:
882:
865:
841:
798:
771:
740:
717:
696:
659:
638:
605:
582:
553:
502:
485:
466:
441:
398:
384:
365:
350:
319:
304:
277:
262:
228:
77:
1160:
1031:
837:
736:
601:
224:
154:
1186:
have even less evidence of notability for dedicated articles, but it would be a mistake to simply delete them
692:
655:
1075:: Needs work, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG. Everything on Earth ends in "failure", i.e., death.--
561:
I'm not recommending speedy retention per Criterion 2; I'm voting for retention based on suspicious behavior
540:
for disruption" (emphasis added). (His talk page and contributions provide more details, if any are needed.)
268:
would say that something smells pretty bad in the way that that editor has been vilified here and elsewhere.
99:
1102:
893:
794:
767:
394:
361:
315:
273:
457:) 03:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Calling MP a "business" misses the point of the 100+ releases entirely.
204:
1239:
713:
91:
83:
36:
918:
878:
861:
526:
I do not make such an accusation lightly, but I believe it's necessary in this case. The nominator's
1148:
1019:
833:
747:
732:
684:
646:- No reliable sources. Non-notable 1 man show with article created by owner and "friends" who hurl
597:
220:
190:
1216:
1191:
1174:
170:
1220:
1198:
in order to retain the existing information for possible merging into it. In general, I think
1003:
983:
963:
943:
576:
547:
498:
490:
479:
462:
454:
435:
378:
344:
298:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1238:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
782:
709:
532:
518:
64:
687:. Is there any reliable source that Tim Davenport and Timbo Chandler are the same person ?
874:
857:
805:
755:
723:
672:
629:
588:
288:
253:
333:, long-standing editors included, for pursuing COI bogeyman when the conflicts have been
848:
789:
since my ISP last changed my IP address in December 2015) and have called for deletion.
1208:
1203:
1130:
676:
325:
284:
1094:
1077:
1055:
821:
647:
217:
420:: I don't see how an article covering a failed business venture can be promotional.
999:
979:
959:
939:
825:
813:
571:
542:
494:
474:
458:
450:
430:
421:
373:
339:
293:
129:
58:
888:
of course) fails to assume good faith and to contentrate on the issue at hand.
618:
242:
337:. I concede that, on the merits, the subject does not appear to be notable.
54:(Note: This close has no bearing on any future AFDs regarding this article.)
424:
did not create the article; his conflict is declared on the talk page; and
785:
point 2, because I am an uninvolved editor (if you don't believe me check
237:
I don't know what's going on, but this seems like a personal grudge. See
239:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard (3rd nomination)
1232:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1120:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1048:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
911:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
856:
able to meet Knowledge's article policies and guidelines. --
283:
COIs by Knowledge administrators. The pattern of behavior
829:
125:
121:
117:
189:
1126:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1093:Which sources do you believe make the subject meet
1054:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
917:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
816:and were "sourced" (if that is the right term) to
675:below. The first edit of Carrite is relevant for
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1246:). No further edits should be made to this page.
824:with this article or alternatively with account
996:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
976:list of Business-related deletion discussions
203:
8:
994:Note: This debate has been included in the
974:Note: This debate has been included in the
954:Note: This debate has been included in the
934:Note: This debate has been included in the
514:based on the impropriety of the nomination.
936:list of Oregon-related deletion discussions
993:
973:
956:list of Music-related deletion discussions
953:
933:
7:
528:contributions to English Knowledge
24:
828:which was opened later and whose
683:directed against the nominator -
679:considering Carrite's NPA remark
1215:is legitimately contentious. --
1194:at least as a stub, and doing a
847:
804:
722:
587:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
681:return of Socky the Grudgester
650:like "Socky the Grudgemaster"
428:are constructive and neutral.
1:
1184:Category:Punk record labels
818:this Internet trash article
1263:
1107:17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
1085:04:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
1066:12:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
1037:22:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
1008:02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
988:02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
968:02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
948:02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
927:16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
898:17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
883:10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
866:05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
842:04:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
799:19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
772:18:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
741:17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
718:10:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
697:09:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
660:10:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
639:16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
606:06:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
583:19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
554:04:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
503:22:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
486:04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
467:03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
442:02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
399:17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
385:21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
366:21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
351:20:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
320:20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
305:19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
278:19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
263:16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
229:02:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
371:an exercise in futility.
1235:Please do not modify it.
1225:14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
1166:04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
78:18:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1138:21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
536:as an account "used
533:blocked indefinitely
1213:WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT
1200:WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT
1196:WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT
760:deletion discussion
752:deletion discussion
748:Alexander Solodukha
853:Administrator note
92:Mutant Pop Records
84:Mutant Pop Records
1140:
1083:
1068:
1010:
990:
970:
950:
929:
871:IP 120.56.118.252
335:plainly disclosed
76:
1254:
1237:
1163:
1158:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1125:
1123:
1121:
1082:
1062:
1059:
1053:
1051:
1049:
1034:
1029:
916:
914:
912:
851:
808:
787:my contributions
726:
625:
624:
591:
581:
579:
574:
552:
550:
545:
535:
484:
482:
477:
440:
438:
433:
383:
381:
376:
349:
347:
342:
303:
301:
296:
249:
248:
208:
207:
193:
145:
133:
115:
73:
67:
56:
50:procedural close
34:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1244:deletion review
1233:
1161:
1149:
1141:
1131:
1129:
1127:
1116:
1114:
1069:
1060:
1057:
1044:
1042:
1032:
1020:
930:
919:Yamamoto Ichiro
907:
905:
756:Crazy Eyes Crew
671:in response to
637:
620:
619:
577:
572:
570:
548:
543:
541:
531:
480:
475:
473:
436:
431:
429:
379:
374:
372:
345:
340:
338:
299:
294:
292:
287:suspicious and
261:
244:
243:
150:
141:
106:
90:
87:
71:
65:
61:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1260:
1258:
1249:
1248:
1228:
1227:
1168:
1124:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1088:
1087:
1052:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1012:
1011:
991:
971:
951:
915:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
868:
834:Mohsinpathania
802:
801:
776:
775:
774:
743:
733:Mohsinpathania
710:Chris Woodrich
702:
701:
700:
699:
689:120.56.118.252
663:
662:
652:120.56.114.246
641:
627:
611:
610:
609:
608:
598:Mohsinpathania
585:
523:
522:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
444:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
251:
221:Mohsinpathania
211:
210:
147:
86:
81:
59:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1259:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1230:
1229:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1139:
1134:
1122:
1119:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:86.17.222.157
1096:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1050:
1047:
1038:
1035:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
989:
985:
981:
977:
972:
969:
965:
961:
957:
952:
949:
945:
941:
937:
932:
931:
928:
924:
920:
913:
910:
899:
895:
891:
890:86.17.222.157
886:
885:
884:
880:
876:
872:
869:
867:
863:
859:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
800:
796:
792:
791:86.17.222.157
788:
784:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:86.17.222.157
761:
757:
753:
749:
744:
742:
738:
734:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
707:
704:
703:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
669:Note to Admin
667:
666:
665:
664:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
642:
640:
635:
631:
626:
623:
616:
613:
612:
607:
603:
599:
594:
590:
586:
584:
580:
575:
568:
564:
560:
557:
556:
555:
551:
546:
539:
534:
529:
525:
524:
520:
517:
513:
510:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
487:
483:
478:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
456:
452:
448:
445:
443:
439:
434:
427:
423:
419:
416:
400:
396:
392:
391:86.17.222.157
388:
387:
386:
382:
377:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
358:86.17.222.157
354:
353:
352:
348:
343:
336:
332:
327:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
312:86.17.222.157
308:
307:
306:
302:
297:
290:
286:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
270:86.17.222.157
266:
265:
264:
259:
255:
250:
247:
240:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
219:
215:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
144:
140:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
85:
82:
80:
79:
74:
68:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1234:
1231:
1202:rather than
1187:
1178:
1170:
1154:
1150:
1144:
1115:
1076:
1072:
1056:
1043:
1025:
1021:
1015:
906:
870:
852:
826:User:Carrite
814:User:CDaniel
809:
803:
778:
727:
705:
685:WP:BOOMERANG
680:
668:
643:
621:
614:
592:
566:
562:
558:
537:
515:
511:
446:
417:
330:
245:
234:
213:
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
138:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1192:Punk labels
1175:Punk labels
634:revolutions
538:exclusively
426:his changes
258:revolutions
177:free images
875:Malcolmxl5
858:Malcolmxl5
830:first edit
673:Malcolmxl5
563:by analogy
66:have a cup
1240:talk page
1132:Music1201
1000:• Gene93k
980:• Gene93k
960:• Gene93k
940:• Gene93k
783:WP:SKCRIT
519:WP:SKCRIT
37:talk page
1242:or in a
1188:en masse
1118:Relisted
1078:Milowent
1046:Relisted
909:Relisted
810:Comment:
728:Comment:
593:Comment:
136:View log
39:or in a
1217:IamNotU
1209:WP:PROD
1204:WP:PROD
1145:Comment
677:WP:DUCK
648:WP:NPAs
630:spin me
495:Carrite
459:Carrite
451:Carrite
447:Comment
422:Carrite
418:Comment
326:appears
291:to me.
254:spin me
235:Comment
183:WP refs
171:scholar
109:protect
104:history
1157:wister
1153:wister
1095:WP:GNG
1028:wister
1024:wister
1016:Delete
822:WP:COI
779:Delete
644:DELETE
331:anyone
289:pointy
218:WP:ORG
214:DELETE
155:Google
113:delete
60:Coffee
1171:Merge
754:) or
622:78.26
559:Note:
285:looks
246:78.26
198:JSTOR
159:books
143:Stats
130:views
122:watch
118:links
72:beans
16:<
1221:talk
1162:talk
1103:talk
1073:Keep
1061:5969
1058:Onel
1033:talk
1004:talk
984:talk
964:talk
944:talk
923:talk
894:talk
879:talk
862:talk
838:talk
795:talk
768:talk
737:talk
714:talk
706:Keep
693:talk
656:talk
615:Keep
602:talk
578:ing
573:Rebb
549:ing
544:Rebb
512:Keep
499:talk
491:THIS
481:ing
476:Rebb
463:talk
455:talk
437:ing
432:Rebb
395:talk
380:ing
375:Rebb
362:talk
346:ing
341:Rebb
316:talk
300:ing
295:Rebb
274:talk
225:talk
191:FENS
165:news
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
1179:not
1173:to
567:cf.
516:Cf.
241:.
205:TWL
134:– (
75://
69://
63://
1223:)
1128:—
1105:)
1097:?
1081:•
1006:)
998:.
986:)
978:.
966:)
958:.
946:)
938:.
925:)
896:)
881:)
864:)
840:)
797:)
770:)
739:)
716:)
695:)
658:)
632:/
604:)
565:("
501:)
493:.
465:)
397:)
364:)
318:)
276:)
256:/
227:)
185:)
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
57:—
1219:(
1155:T
1151:S
1101:(
1026:T
1022:S
1002:(
982:(
962:(
942:(
921:(
892:(
877:(
860:(
836:(
793:(
766:(
758:(
750:(
735:(
712:(
691:(
654:(
636:)
628:(
600:(
497:(
461:(
453:(
393:(
360:(
314:(
272:(
260:)
252:(
223:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
139:·
132:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.