Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Coyne

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. Singularity 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Coyne

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

Tagged with a {{prod}} yesterday, prod was removed with the comment Removal of unverifiable data. Following edits were more spamish, and SiobhanHansa tagged with {{db-spam}}, but I figured that since the prod was removed, it should come here, at least for a little bit. Obvious WP:COI and WP:SPAM issues, not to mention completely unverifiable, Google hits only show a few hits, all of them written in the same style. Strong Delete CosmicPenguin (Talk) 03:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Spam. Jmm6f488 03:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, completely WP:OR providing no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 04:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• DeleteKww 12:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Very unencyclopedic, adds no value to Wikipedia as written, and doesn't look salvagable. -- SiobhanHansa 13:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Member of a band which made 3 CDs (by my count), 2 of which were never released, 1 of which isn't available in any major outlet (except WalMart, and, even then, in a download). Barring that, major claim to notability seems to be gigging around the Eastern Seaboard.--Sethacus 16:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. From what I can see, I'd bet dollars to donuts that the OP was also the subject. Pat Payne 21:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a classic candidate for G11 deletion, except now that it's in AfD, it should have the full process. According to WP:MUSIC we would expect to see prizes, national concert tours, or two or more records with a major label. We don't see this. Setting aside the self-promotion, we don't appear to have notability. EdJohnston 22:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the G11 - you'll notice in the history that the more egregious spam appeared after I added the {{prod}}. Had that been there when I first came on this article, I wouldn't have thought twice. As it is, I considered a A7, but there was some notability asserted toward the end. I'm still not very skilled at walking the fine line between speedy and not. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unformatted unencyclodic bilge. COI problem merely puts the top hat on it. Bigdaddy1981 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the nomination and salt. Burntsauce 21:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and flush twice.--Mantanmoreland 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above -- but I will be bold and userfy the content. Maybe he can be more successful, both as an editor and a musician, in the future. Bearian 02:45, 12 August 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.