Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrisso Courtis


 * 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. Take your pick: SNOW delete or CSD A7--article makes no believable claim of importance. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Chrisso Courtis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

A writer of a diet book and a singer "Signed with CD Baby". No reliable references. Supposed reliable refs of Reuters or Yahoo are press releases. Published his book with Publish Green, a self-service publisher of ebooks. His music, well, CD Baby doesn't "sign" artists. For the cherry on top, we have SPAs. Bgwhite (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's absolutely no independent and reliable sources to show that this guy, his music, or his diet are notable. The sources on the article are almost all primary press releases or otherwise unusable. The sole source that isn't primary is Diets in Review, but that doesn't look like it's a reliable source. Even if it is, that's only one review and that's not enough to show notability. The article is such a mess that you could probably get it speedied under it being overly promotional.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. For all the above reasons. Harry the Dog  WOOF  09:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For all of the above reasons and oh so many more. Ignoring 871 of the 873 tags on the article, dude shows no indication of notability under any criteria and (due to the sources being all primary and/or unreliable) fails GNG as well. Really: once it's tagged as reading like a fan site, many of the rest (weasel words, tone, personal essay, peacock terms, neutrality, etc.) are all implied. The horse has been sufficiently beaten. It is quite dead. No need to disembowel it, cut off the head, burn the remains and scatter the ashes. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The whole point of the number of tags is to show that the article is probably irretrievable. It can't be speedied because there is an assertion of notability, which is what is needed to decline a speedy. I left the notability tag off for that reason. It warranted a second opinion, so having looked at it I placed the tags with a view to a second pair of eyes possibly nominating it if they agreed there was no hope for the article and the subject was not notable, which happened. Harry the Dog WOOF  14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think it's irretrievable, bring it to AfD; don't throw every possible tag at it - that is redundant and makes you look silly. Lady  of  Shalott  18:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL I didn't throw "every possible tag at it"! Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The tags alert other editors to the various issues. Sometimes second looks are good before beginning a process like AfD. Harry the Dog WOOF  19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience, tags are one of the least effective ways to alert editors there is an issue with an article, adding 13 tags does not make it 13 times more likely to be improved. Summer is right, if you think that the article doesn't hold water and should be deleted, do your research and nominate it for AfD.  If it should be tagged, pick the ones that apply the most. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, my experience is exactly the opposite. Look at all the articles with one, two, three tags that never get looked at. "Tagged since July 2007"!. Every time (and I have done it about half a dozen times; I don't do it every day) I have placed a large number of tags on a page when I have spotted problems but haven't had time to do the research myself, the article has either been improved or nominated by someone who has had time to do the research and take the appropriate action. This article is a case in point! Harry the Dog WOOF  07:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When editors with a significant amount of experience (like, multiple times more) make a suggestion it's a good idea to listen. The tags are ridiculous, and if you really thought they were valid in the first place you should have CSDed it (a claim of importance has to be believable) or nominated it for AfD. If you don't have to time to look carefully enough to make the proper decision, don't take the time to tag it. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. For the reasons above.  The Vancouver-based references are fairly obscure and I couldn't find any local sources to support them; they're so tenuous that they don't seem to lend any notability in my opinion.  Ubelowme (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete promotion of non-notable writer/ non-notable musician. Lady  of  Shalott  18:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent reliable sources to establish this person's overall notability. Press releases are not the same thing. The article reads like a self promotion with online sources linked to the subject. --Artene50 (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (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.