Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Myers


 * 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, hoax, and snowballing discussion. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Myers

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

I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss or even mention the artist to the extent that I cannot be sure the article isn't a hoax. The website linked from the page gives a picture that says "Coming soon" and the following Google searches give no meaningful results: "Christian Myers" AND "CZA", "Christian Myers" AND "Record Collection", "Christian Myers" AND "Wu Tang Clan". Additioanlly the Record Collection label to which it is claimed the act is signed, does not list them as one of their artists. Currently there is no verifiable information on which an article could be based and no evidence that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the specific guideline for music related articles (or that they even exist). Guest9999 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding PROBABLE CAUZE to nomination - same story, looking at the creating editor's contributions - I'm pretty certain these are hoaxes. Guest9999 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE: User added a November 2008 dated tag themselves, perhaps to sidestep a speedy delete. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for both. Absolutely no sources for either of these claims.--Woland (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, clear hoax. -- Amalthea 01:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Note that the page creator of PROBABLE CAUZE inserted their own November 2008-dated Refimprove tag (diff) after they created the page (today/yesterday) ... which appears to have (successfully) slowed down what would have been a speedy delete. Proofreader77 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Walled garden and hence delete both as both being clear hoaxes. MuZemike 05:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both - nom's evidence is conclusive. Also block the author who has no constructive edits and is already at vandalism warning #4. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely fails notability guidelines. I came across this page and wondered why it wasn't speedied.  C h a m a l  talk 15:09, 17 January 2009 (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.