Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Ellias


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

George Ellias

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a musician who fails Notability_(music) (Article was created by a user who has since been banned for sockpuppetry, so although I'm letting twinkle notify them anyway, they are unlikely to respond.) Kevin (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Baseball   Watcher  22:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This article, in various incarnations by  sockpuppets to  evade blocks, has already  been deleted at least  six times. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as creation (by AfC) by sockpuppet of blocked user(s) - CSD G5 --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and (re)salt. I don't think G5 applies, since the user was not blocked at the time of creation. However, I don't see this artist meeting notability. I'm fine with giving a week to see if more evidence emerges, but if not, I think it's fair to say that the community as spoken, and there shall not be an article about Ellias on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may well be right  about  the G5 Fred, but it looks very much like a new account that  was created for block  evasion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The original user was blocked for repeatedly recreating the article after speedy deletion, apparently unaware that it was not permissible to do so. The new article was created with my supervision and although I don't believe the article meets the notability guidelines, I believe we should assume good faith and discuss whether the topic is notable. A clear decision will allow him to understand why he cannot continue to attempt to try to create this article. The fact that previous versions of the article met A7 speedy deletion guidelines have no bearing on whether it is acceptable in its present form. I'm also concerned that the user has no opportunity to participate in this discussion or to edit the article under discussion to try to address concerns (due to being blocked and needless protection of the article). Dcoetzee 04:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC, sourced only to press release-type material, videos, and other apparent primary sources, lacks third-party coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Kinu t /c  18:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to meet WP:MUS. Probably will merit an article one day, impressive amount of promotional ghits... no reliable independent sources though. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  12:16, 13 April 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.