Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaz Woods


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 02:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Gaz Woods

 * – (View AfD)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore doesn't comply with notability requirements, or possibly even a hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (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) 00:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete - A modern day Hendrix. An inspiration to young aspiring guitarists, and a true professional. WP:BARFBAG. If this unsourced extravaganza is factual, and it's unsourced, so who knows, this is a session musician with a fairly long resumé. That still falls short of our notability standards... Carrite (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete One would assume that a musician who is called "a modern day Hendix" in a Wikipedia article would be discussed in depth in many reliable sources. In this particular case, one would be wrong to make such an assumption.  This particular Hendrix wannabe is a "modern day non-notable". Cullen328 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage, written more like a promotional piece. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete – Article is clearly used as a mean just for promotion only. I've also nominated a picture for deletion on Commons.  undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister   talk  05:33, 24 July 2011 (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.