Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aston Taylor


 * 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. Tawker (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Aston Taylor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is part of an apparent nest of articles created by user User:Aston Taylor. I believe that the facial claims of notability are grossly exaggerated, but since they are there, this can't be speedied. A "musician" with no released music hardly passes WP:MUSIC, and the martial arts achievements are not well specified. Co-nominations for the rest of this stuff forthcoming. deranged bulbasaur 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating:



deranged bulbasaur 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 'Deranged bulbasaur' this article is not consistent with the general guidelines set inWP:MUSIC. The apparent notability is exaggerated and there is little mention of achievements with this artist. I would also nominate:
 * Matt5091 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Added. deranged bulbasaur  03:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we talk about the major WP:COI issues here? It's complete self promotion and blatent advertisement for somebody who can't even meet one of the requirements of [WP:N]]. Also, in regards to Year Of The New Gentlmen...Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Seascic T/C 03:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, can we talk about the manifestly false claim in the Aston Taylor article (in the table) that Cool On You reached position 1 on the UK charts even though according to that song's article, it "released" September, 2008? Also, while I don't want to seem prejudiced against 14 year old boys (I was one myself) they are not generally known for amazing feats of notability. I offer this useful heuristic in good faith and not as a determinative rationale. deranged bulbasaur  03:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we add WP:HOAX while we're at it then? --Seascic T/C 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The user is helpfully creating his copy-paste duplicate articles with the deletion template already present, it appears. deranged bulbasaur  03:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. There are so many reasons to delete these. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOT, WP:HOAX, and maybe more. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails the everything test. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the lot. Dear lord, where do you start, WP:HOAX, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS....I think we all get the picture.   Esradekan Gibb    "Talk" 04:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * G3 all. Blatant hoaxes, every one. No proof that this even exists, which is suspicious. The dream articles meet A3 as they're just empty infoboxes and nothing else, though. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 04:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If some admin bites, perhaps someone should tag the user page too. I'm pretty sure there's consensus that you can't maintain bogus articles that can't survive in mainspace in userspace. deranged bulbasaur  05:00, 1 August 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.