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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 08:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Basically, it's very hard to find good sources that mention this guy non-trivially. I've found
an article but I'm pretty sure it copies stuff from this guy's official website's Bio page. -- Pingumeister(
talk) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Question: Why didn't you nominate the article for speedy deletion? This guy clearly doesn't meet
WP:N, and seems to me to be a perfect candidate for
CSD A7.
{MordeKyle} ☢ 23:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - because according to A7, "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The article makes a credible claim of significance. This AfD is here to decide whether it meets
WP:N. -- Pingumeister(
talk) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd say the only claim of importance is for the group, not for the individual. A redirect would be more than adequate.
Deb (
talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - CSD was more appropriate for this promotional piece. There is nothing to assert notability. I have also requested deletion for the same draft.
Malunrenta (
talk) 07:33, 25 January 2017 (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.