Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Albert Davis

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 — Caknuck 02:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Albert Davis

Carl Albert Davis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable preacher/rapper/record producer who has constructed an autobiography article. This is one of several non-notable profile articles that the same user has created, most of which contained copyvio from a bible study web page that he appears to be connected with. No reliable sources. OfficeGirl 05:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non notable as per nom. No third party references. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no evidence that this is a notable performer. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if he was notable this is not an acceptable quality of article. A lot of it is very much his personal view and is highy unencyclopedic. He is entitled to his views, and to publish them if he wants to, but they do not belong on Wikipedia. He shows no signs of wanting to improve his articles or discuss the problems. He just removes valid tags. --DanielRigal 12:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC, because there's no reliable references, because there's a COI issue so huge it's not funny. No disrespect to the project, but the most reliable source they use is Wikipedia itself, and I'm not sure we qualify under WP:V. --UsaSatsui 15:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree. In my opinion, the COI issue is so huge that it is indeed very funny. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• There's nothing funny about it. So, how shall we decide this dispute? Community consensus? Edit war? RFA? UsaSatsui 16:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A quick game of Mumblety peg. Winner gets the right to laugh or not laugh, depending on his/her position on the issue. Loser gets a trip to the first aid station.OfficeGirl 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to concede and allow the laugh, then. My feet are too lucky to risk injury. --UsaSatsui 18:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per very lack of notability and very obvious COI situation.--JForget 00:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nominator, the only sources cited are "blogspotradio" which hardly qualifies as reliable. Burntsauce 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent sources, nothing that indicates even the slightest bit of notability (has he even released an album?). Probably a vanity page, created by a user with the same name. Melsaran (talk) 12:14, 21 September 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.