Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Tridel


 * 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. (aeropa gitica) 08:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

John Tridel
Fails WP:BIO. If he were "famous", he would get hits on Google. He gets none (per User:IceCreamAntisocial). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - please actually read the text, where we specifically tell you he is an "up and coming singer." Hence, he may not be "google"-able (comment refactored to remove personal attacks) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paukka12 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. That fact that he is "up and coming" is exactly why he shouldn't have an article per WP:BIO. (|--   UlT i MuS  05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, respect an opposing viewpoint. Honestly, deleting everything I say in support of this article is unfair and degrades the purpose of wikipedia being built through different community voices. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paukka12 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But it wasn't really a viewpoint. It was more just a personal attack without proper rationale for why the article should be kept. You're more than welcome to express a good reason, though. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ultimus. Paukka12's bad behavior doesn't help his case, either. Danny Lilithborne 06:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. When he's up-and-come enough that Google's heard of him, he may be notable enough for inclusion. BigHaz 07:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:MUSIC, and no sources cited. -- Whpq 16:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

-- why does it matter if he has a google page or not? all i need to do to get on google is make a stupid webpage somewhere with my name all over it. i support this article because john tridel is a lyrical genius (he talks about the CHURCH AND STATE FOOLS) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.126.198.126 (talk • contribs)  04:45, 30 August 2006  (UTC)
 * Strong delete, fails WP:BIO, no WP:RS indicating any sort of notability, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Oh, and calling other editors "fools" really doesn't lend much legitimacy to your arguments for retention. -- Kinu  t /c  05:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:BIO miserably. Try again later.  RFerreira 06:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep listen to the song. he has credibility as this song was PLAYED on the 92.3 radio station. Furthermore, the radio talk host was begging for him to come on the show and sing live. This guy has talent and will be famous. PS: the guy two above that supported this article and called john tridel a "lyrical genius" please message me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paukka12 (talk • contribs)
 * The song may be good, but that hardly addresses WP:BIO, which is the operative issue here. The fact that it was played on the radio doesn't necessarily help either, since that's not exactly hard to achieve. That said, there might be press coverage as a result of a live appearance if he makes one - and there's bound to be press coverage if/when he becomes famous. Currently he isn't and hasn't received any that anyone can find. If you want the article kept, I'd suggest that WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC be addressed in your comments. BigHaz 04:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. Clearly fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 07:30, 1 September 2006 (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.