Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aloysius Scrimshaw


 * 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  Procedural close. Article was speedy-deleted per A7 by User:Coffee. (non-admin closure) NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Aloysius Scrimshaw

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage in independent sources at all. Reference 1 doesn't mention him at all, reference 2 is about his father and reference 3 looks like it's supposed to be his own webpage, but redirects to some strange music website. Would've CSDed with A7 and G11, but an unknown IP removed another editor's G11 tag. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉  13:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't come close to passing WP:MUSICBIO and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG either.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Self-promotion, doesn't come close to passing WP:MUSICBIO and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acousmana (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment the Allmusic bio was about a different person so I deleted it, at present there is no rs in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. We probably ought to consider the very real possibility that this whole article is a hoax.  The now-deleted MusicBrainz reference had the subject's date of death at 2188 (that's not a typo -- the MusicBrainz entry said that the subject would die at age 199).  And if the article is to be believed, his father was age 70 when he was born to a mother who was aged 18 (and who is listed in her article as having married someone else).  Let's hope this discussion ends as a snow-close delete.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd rather CSD this than waste time at AfD, but what exactly can I do when someone other than the article creator, a non-admin, removes the first CSD template placed there? Genuinely curious. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉  04:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking through the article history, I see that the original CSD was db-madeup, so that particular CSD rationale won't be available to use a second time. But is there any doubt that the now-blocked IP address was a sock for the article creator?  I suppose you could take this to SPI, hope that they prove that the CSD removal was by a sock, and then reinstate it.  But the folks at SPI are already overworked, so why bother them about this?  There's little chance that the article will survive this nomination, so it'll all be over in a few days.  In the meantime, I'll slap a hoax banner on the article and await the outcome of this nomination.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2017 (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.