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 Deleted as self-promotion by subject. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Surge-N[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disputed speedy. I'm unable to find any way in which this entry meets the requirements of WP:BAND; there is a suggestion that the number of YouTube viewings is an assertion of significance but I am unaware of any such notability standard. The article's creator's username is User:DJ Surge-N, which suggests a conflict of interest issue. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The Ectoplasmosis reference is the only reference I see that could be a claim of significant coverage. I haven't been able to search for references yet so I'll !vote late. OlYeller^Talktome 19:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom can't see anything that shows the article meets WP:BAND. Codf1977 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hi there. Just letting you know that the WP:Band can be met under "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." and "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - This is an objective and neutral statement and this can be seen by comments, view counts and listen counts on the associated YouTube, MySpace and Facebook pages, as well as the Ectoplasmosis review and others which I also plan to add in due course. People now refer to DJ Surge-N as a trusted, consistent DJ who's solidified his remixing/mash up techniques in an online community and a progressively into the offline community. The radio station which played 'Tick-Toxic' in constant rotation was based in New Zealand, known as ZM. This I aim to get verified for reference purposes, however this may be difficult due to its rotation back in 2004-2005 originally. So taking these two points into account, I believe that WP:Band is met. I just wanted to clarify that to avoid another deletion as time has been spent on cleaning up the article and establishing it further, including a discography and some forthcoming edits. As of now I believe the information given accurately dictates DJ Surge-N's notability to an extent, using the resources cited. I plan to further this in due course, but due to other commitments I cannot edit full time. That being said, whenever the time permits I shall be elaborating further and adding onto the article which as of now provides a decent basis. Cheers Surge-N (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Surge-N[reply]
Delete - not notable. GregJackP (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent evidence of notability. Thparkth (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~!Keep~~ - Some reviews were removed by someone, and they have been re-added. Showing some evidence of independent notability. Adding more shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surge-N (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's in bad taste to add multiple keeps, especially when there appears to be a conflict of interest. ialsoagree (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the 2nd !keep - you only get to !vote once. GregJackP (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As has been stated, does not appear to meet requirements of WP:BAND. ialsoagree (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User has created 2 additional pages related to this, DJ Surge-N discography and State of Ensurgency EP. Both have been tagged for speedy deletion. FinalRapture (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I refuse to edit and waste my time further if an agreement can not be made soon. I disagree with most of what many of you have said so it would be highly amusing if later on down the track another similar or identical page was created which would prove most of you incorrect. I implore you to check at least some sources which provide a decent basis on which to acknowledge notability, if one video, channel or website isn't enough then I implore you to check comments and feedback also. Understandably 'comments' aren't a 'definitive' and/or 'reliable' source, however it does indeed show a notable artist with considerable influence. If other YouTube users (such as Internet Killed Televsion also known as CTFxC) are able to create an internet account and are notable (not only by a few reviews/few awards, but by also comments and popularity clearly shown by their videos as well as on their related sites such as Facebook and Twitter), I believe this musician should also be allowed taking into consideration all that has been said. Unfortunately, as opposed to the time you may be able to give, my time cannot be used full time to develop the article but as I believe I have established a sound basis I saw fit to start this article as to my surprise there was none. There is a reason why I have contested this, and I implore you to see reason. Also note that DJ Surge-N has made the mash up charts over on this particular website: http://www.mashup-charts.com/artist/?bootlegger=DJ_Surge-N - Archives from 2004 have stated high rankings, top 10 and top 20 (Currently still at least in the top 250). The exact rankings are yet to be determined as archives will have to be run through. This website is not run by him and/or his management and is completely independent. Surge-N (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Surge-N[reply]

Comment: Surge-N, you might want to double check the CTFxC article. It includes many references from third party sources. Part of the problem with your article is that it doesn't cite any third party sources, and third party sources are hard to find (in fact, a news search of google turns up nothing). If you'd like this article to remain, you need to provide references that show it's notoriety. I appreciate that you might not have the time to flesh the article out yourself, but others might not either, and until someone is willing to do the research to show why this article is notable, it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. ialsoagree (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2010 (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.