Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John P Galea


 * 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. Noting that CSD G5 applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

John P Galea

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is the same as WP:Articles for deletion/John Galea. PLease also see the huge archive at Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24. Worst case of persistent article recreation and sockpuppetry I've ever come across, lasting years. The link given (to the artist's own website) said he charted at #24 in the 'Commercial Pop Chart'. Not a national chart, unclear what this chart is at all. I've repeatedly asked the sockpuppet to use AfC if they think he is now notable, but continues to try to just sneak in a creation under multiple different versions (over 20) of the name John Galea, e.g. John P. Galea, John Galeaa. Sending WP:APPNOTE to, and. Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, apparently this artist has never been mentioned in British dailies The Daily Mail or The Guardian, at least not in their web editions. Also, article was created by User:Zamnamedia who may or may not be associated with artist's record company "Zamna Records". Thuresson (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Creator left message on my talk page identifying herself as a member of Galea's management team. This is also following the pattern of previous issues - my AfD template was removed by . Now back on. Page has had to be semi-protected. Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment on procedure The issue was (and is) notability, so the presence of additional cited sources compared to the version previously deleted means this is not a G4 speedy. I have now removed a G4 tag twice. Reapplying such a tag after a reviewing admin has declined the speedy (as noted on the article talk page) is generally considered a poor idea. I am not offering an opnion on the merits of deletion by this discussion, only on speedy deletion as G4. DES (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , if you look at the edit history, you'll see that IP re-added the speedy tag, almost certainly accidently and the IP (same as creator?) was actually trying to remove the link to the AfD, leading to page protection. Boleyn (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator and its latest socks have now been blocked, after Sockpuppet investigations/Johngalea24. As the creator has now been established as yet another sock of banned user, User:Johngalea24, the article is eligible for G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user (Johngalea24) in violation of ban or block. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2016 (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.