Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J0HNNY

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 --JForget 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J0HNNY

J0HNNY (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

• Speedy deleted twice but the creator has explicitly asked for an AFD. This does not meet the general notability requirements or those of WP:MUSIC. It is written like a piece of spam as well. I see no harm in an afd and opening this upto other opinions without being bitey. Thanks Woody (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agree, this is little informative and written like a fifth grader. It is not encyclopedic for the most part. I vote for delete Compwhiz II 21:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional keep If it can be shown that it's the same John Chavez from Vehemence, the article is keep-able, meeting criterion #6 as the former member of a notable group (two albums on Metal Blade is pretty solid notability). However, the article needs tons of work to make it encyclopedic; as it stands it's some serious vanispamcruftisement. Precious Roy (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete having speedy deleted it before, and having fulfilled a request by the creator to restore the article to his user space, he twice used the restored content to recreate the article without addressing the concerns that were explained to him. I gave him a final warning about this, but he still recreated it, so I am blocking him. The article should be speedy deleted as A7(band), because it asserts nothing for notability except a WP:CRYSTAL prediction that the artist will emerge in 2008. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Regardless of writing style it's based on a solo career launched this year - it's less than a week old. Notability may come, but not before the AfD debate is over. Gaffertape (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Jerry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah, and Salt it this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete but not speedily. Since the original editor won't take no for an answer, let this go through the AfD, then if he recreates, it can be speedy deleted and salted. Corvus cornix_talk 23:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Salt if necessary as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The if necessary is what this discussion is trying to decide. Please elaborate what you think should be done. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was to determine whether the article should be deleted or not? Either way, if the author continues to create the article after repeated Speedy Deletions with the same unsourced content, especially after this AfD, then salt away. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete But not speedy, let the editor take full advantage of the AfD process, as is his right. If the final decision is to delete I also think it should be Salted, if this person become notable at some point in the future an appeal can be made to correct this action. OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt. Per above. --EndlessDan 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt per above. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (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.