Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Tanny


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

David Tanny

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable blogger, musician, 'net "radio" host, Wikipedia editor and author. Primary sources show (mostly) that yes, he has blogged, his one song aired twice, he hosted a non-notable 'net radio show, edited Wikipedia and wrote two newspaper articles. Independent reliable sources show a few of those things, but do not discuss Tanny, the subject of this article. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable at all. A long way below the minimum criteria for inclusion QU TalkQu 14:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep David Tanny plays a vital, pivotal role within the Dementia community despite having few of his songs actually played on The Dr. Demento Show. He is also a FuMP artist like many other musicians with Wikipedia pages such as the great Luke Ski and Lemon Demon. --JohnnyLurg (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This doesn't even look like a close question. The text of the article itself does not suggest that Tanny is notable. Most of the links provided are not to reliable sources, and the couple of newspaper links only mention Tanny in passing. Terence7 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing here to establish notability. As Terence7 said, the references provided in the article really don't satisfy the criteria as reliable sources.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:28, 26 March 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.