Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firebrand Boy


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Firebrand Boy

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject fails to meet any notability guidelines. Violates policy on biographies of living persons because it contains original research. It is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it was written by them subject themself as a form of self-promotion Mellowmending (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Noorullah (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find much on a WP:BEFORE and the sources in the article are mostly primary and unreliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unless reliable sources can be found Jothefiredragon (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete  Even most of the current sources are just the music itself, showcases why AFC and NPP exists.
 * Geardona (talk to me?) 17:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * comment I've investigated further into this article. It was originally written by in 2008. After he was made aware of Autobiography he left a message saying that the article should be deleted (User talk:Firebrandboy).
 * claimed to be the other account of and originally tried to speedy delete the article before submitting it to Afd (Talk:Firebrand_Boy).
 * Although it's correct to nominate an article for deletion. I can't help but feel that it's strange to see old articles getting into Afd as it's usually newer ones that got into Afd. Jothefiredragon (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for your insights. It's important to note the role of 'status quo bias' in our assessment of older articles like this one. Often, such articles remain unexamined due to a preference for the existing state of affairs, leading to a focus on newer content. However, the small size and the autobiographical nature of this article, as highlighted by its original author, suggest it may have initially bypassed rigorous editorial standards. Reevaluating such articles, irrespective of their age, is crucial to uphold Wikipedia's standards of notability and verifiability. Mellowmending (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen&times;  &#9742;  19:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  21:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete This article has flown under the radar for way too long, but better late than never. The musician has no reliable media coverage and is only visible in the usual promotional services and directories. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - As argued above the subject does not appear to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above.  dxneo  (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your contribution to the discussion. Mellowmending (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2024 (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.