Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Battiloro


 * 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. Non-notable. Manning (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

John Battiloro

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Largely promotional puff piece that doesn't include any serious claims to fame. No reliable sources found. ninety:one  23:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see why this is being said. I have verified the information on Discogs, IMDB and the web. I think the "puff" should be taken out and I will edit this piece to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infodataguru (talk • contribs) 11:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what this looked like before others have edited it but it looks fine now. Everything checks out and is accurate without to much puff. I think it should be here. He obviously has contributed much to the music industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologyst101 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No in depth coverage by reliable sources. Supplied IMDb and Discogs links are trivial database entries that only prove that the article is not a complete hoax. The links provide zero support for any of the biographical details. A search for reliable sources gets only false positives. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Do Not Delete" After review of over 50 other Biography's I found them to be NO different than this. I think this is a personal issue with someone. I cannot find one reason why IMDB, Discogs etc are now being discounted. Musicologyst101 07:48, July 10 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicologyst101 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of notable mentions. I digged through two pages each of Yahoo and Google searches, and I didn't find any solid mentions just small mentions on websites. Although, the article cites IMDb and Discogs the article can't sustain itself entirely on those two sources. SwisterTwister   talk  05:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 14 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.