Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DAVID CREWS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 CSD G11
This appears to be an attempt at advertising but may be notable. Certainly an improvement is needed. In any case I bring it to the community from CSD for consideration JodyB yak, yak, yak 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. A google search for "David Crews" + elvis (link) turns up fewer than 3k hits, none notable that I saw (mostly advertising). Precious Roy 12:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Spam or not, this guy fails WP:MUSIC and has no real significance. /Blaxthos 13:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because. THE REST OF THE INFORMATION CAN BE VERiFIED BY HOARY IN A LEGALLY SWORN AND NOTARIZED DOCUMENT WHICH CAN BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST BY HOARY. -- Hoary 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Has been deleted twice already. -- RHaworth 14:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple previous deletions should have been noted in the nomination. In that case, I also move to salt the earth. /Blaxthos 16:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both previous deletions were speedies including one for COI and lack of verification - neither of which is a proper CSD. Personally I think it should be deleted but there is, at least an assertion of notability. -JodyB yak, yak, yak 16:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Spam and fails WP:N. If an article is truly notable, it doesn't need a bunch of capatalized words at the end. TheInfinityZero 15:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's pretty crappy, and even though written by the guy, it can't really stand as an unsourced BLP. I have offered Mr. Crews that if he does the research and posts verifiable sources on my talk page, I will write the article. I have no interest in doing the research, though. I moved it to the correct name, also. KP Botany 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, delete as unsourced and failing WP:MUSIC. While the claims of being the first may be verifiable by phoning people, that would be a primary source, and we just don't have reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:30, 2 September 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.