Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casathious Jones


 * 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 per consensus. fishhead64 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Casathious Jones

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article seems like a hoax, and it's not sourced at all. Fails WP:NOR and WP:ATT. Delete The article also violates WP:AUTO. The proof.GreenJoe 23:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - well, Googling turns up nothing, outside of a single Amazon account - where he appears to enjoy Christmas music and classic singers. His records, and label, produce no GHits, the link to his Last.fm page returns "Sorry, this artist does not have a profile", and the IMDB entry lists him as being an extra in a decidedly trivial film.  This is probably half a hoax, and half simply utter non-notablility.  In either case, it's gone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as unsourced. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 00:33Z 
 * Do Not Delete I know Casathious personally, and he is well-loved in the community. He is an amazing singer and entertainer, and he has infact done all of the things listed in the artical. If you google Casathious Jones, he DOES pop up several different times. Infact, he is on YouTube as well. The reason his records and lable do not show GHits, is that they are only locally know in Rochester, New York. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oct14 (talk • contribs) — Oct14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That doesn't justify the lack of sources for the article. If you can improve it, then great. GreenJoe 15:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I am Casathious Jones, and as myself I deserve to plead my own case! I have made numerous CDs and I have addressed the issue of the lack of references. Now I have an excess of three references. Despite this, select others refuse to accept these references, although they are from admittedly reliable sources. In fact, if one is to look at famous people on Wikipedia, one will find that many a page has fewer references than my article (e.g. Debbie Reynolds, who has only one reference). Although I am by no means the star that Debbie Reynolds has come to be, it is undeniable that the article cites ample references. In my own defense, I am certainly not the only person who has edited and added to the article and keeping with Wikipedia's high standards, I continually delete material which, although true, cannot be proven. In conclusion, although my CDs have sold many copies, and I realize that I am not a legendary star, I still feel that this article should be acceptable to any who may come across it. By no means do I want this to be a self-promoting and biased article about myself and my successes, but I do want an encyclopedic reference such as this to be available for any who desire to find information about me, as one would search for any other person in such a manner, and I see no solid reason for its deletion. Thank you, Casathious Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) — R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Start a website. Wikipedia isn't free webspace. GreenJoe 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I have several of Casathious's CDs and have seen him live in concert. I don't think I can improve the article but as far as I can tell everything on it is true and I know that it is not a hoax. Sajbmz — Sajbmz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's not enough to satisfy WP:V. GreenJoe 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree entirely. Many articles cannot verify every mundane detail that is presented in them, but they have not been under as much scrutiny as the article currently in question. In fact, I feel, as do most others, that this article does a more than satisfactory job of referencing sources. --R.h.c.afounder1 00:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not an excuse for this one to not properly cite. I'm still not satisfied that Casathious Jones is a real person. See WP:WAX GreenJoe 00:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that argument as to whether I exist or not had been cleared up ages ago. I am a real person, as we have already decided upon. I have a Social Security number, a passport, a birth certificate, et cetera. Granted, Casathious Jones is a pseudonym; my legal name is Casey Jones Costello. But that is no secret. --74.69.116.41 01:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) — 74.69.116.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * How many comments must we make in order to meet your standards for edits of other topics? I notice you only happened to place that bulletin on users who spoke up for me. Had they agreed with your point of view, GreenJoe, I suspect you would not have placed such a bulletin on their comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.116.41 (talk • contribs)
 * Had they voiced their opinion to delete and had only contributed to this article, they'd have it too. GreenJoe 04:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But my point is the users who have stuck up for me have not only contributed to this one article. If you look at them, they have all contributed to many. Granted, they do not have as many edits as you, but they still have many. Therefore I am unsure of why you are doing what you are doing; please address this in your next response. --R.h.c.afounder1 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely nn. Fails WP:BIO.  janejellyroll 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom, fails all relevant policies. Thewinchester (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Janejellyroll, according to WP:BIO, "A person is notable if he or she has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." The article in question meets this criteria, and whether or not you have heard of Casathious Jones is irrelevant.--74.69.116.41 16:41, 22 April 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.