Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David B. Thompson (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 11:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

David B. Thompson (2nd nomination)
This article has a complicated history. It was proposed for deletion previously but during the AfD was deleted as a copyvio. It has now been recreated. A deleted edit summary indicates the author emailed Wikipedia (not the right permissions address, but a mailing list) indicating the article is not a copyvio. It's pretty clear that the author == the subject == the web site owner. There are manifest issues of notability, vanity, and WP:AUTO. Nevertheless, I think the article should get a discussion on its merits, so I removed the A7 speedy tag and have listed it here, with no recommendation. MCB 07:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please let me know if there are any reasons this article is not acceptable...Seems fine to me...DBT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dbtjazz (talk • contribs) ., (author/subject of article)
 * The biggest problem is that it is completely unverified. The article needs to cite reliable sources and meet WP:LIVING policy.--Isotope23 18:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say that the biggest problem is that there's no evidence of notability, which is the single most important criterion for inclusion of any article, especially biogs (and, I irrationally sometimes feel, superduper especially for autobiogs). --Dweller 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seem to be no problems. -  jlao   0  4  08:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain for now . The subject may qualify under WP:MUSIC but the article does not clearly indicate how. If he does, the supporters of this article should revise it to explain specifically how he qualifies. --Metropolitan90 08:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of evidence that he meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. --Metropolitan90 15:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - no evidence given of subject passing the usual db-bio guidelines for musicians and the present tense for currently "recording" material, rather than having released would indicate this is currently speediable. --Dweller 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Google is at best unlightening (his name is quite common, even with the middle initial), but appears to be no reviews, recordings, or other supporting material.  Strong flavor of conflict of interest. Robertissimo 14:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per ^^. Also, I don't think a biographical article's subject should serve as the primary editor.  - b o b b y  14:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting WP:MUSIC. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No assertion of notability, probable vanity. A7-able but I think the nominator was right to bring it here. AndyJones 17:51, 31 October 2006 (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.