Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jolly Josh Jolsen


 * 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 Speedy delete a7, g1, repeatedly reposted nonsense/nonnotable bio. NawlinWiki 15:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jolly Josh Jolsen

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable per WP:BIO. How is this guy "fairly well heard of" when his name gets about 7 hits on Google? Flyingtoaster1337 13:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to notable for anything. sources seem to be bogus. --Tainter 14:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for obvious reasons. Claims of notability totally unsupported. Does anybody actually do schoolwork in sixth-form colleges? Seems they're awfully busy creating stuff like this. Fan-1967 16:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless at least one verifiable source i.a. with WP:BIO is added by end of this AfD Alf photoman 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although claims are dubious, I have checked said cited newspapers at library archive and articles are genuine. I would recommend that a reliable online source is found ASAP for users without this facility Molotov146202148 19:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC) — Molotov146202148 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Unverifiable and non-notable per WP:BIO. I'm not convinced by the current references. Prolog 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it looks like an attack page, to me, to be honest, and fails WP:BIO by a long shot. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:HOAX. Nothing in the article confirmable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Admittedly many of the claims appear spurious - no doubt this article could at the very least do with a clean up - but Mr Jolsen and the Roses for the Dead have appeared on stage at the Bridgewater Hall, leading me to suspect that there is at least a kernel of truth in this article worth keeping. The gang rape thing seems over the top though. --Nev1 | Talk 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the claims to notability is largely based on spurious, and spurious, claims. Anyway, there is no indication taht Roses for the Dead satisfy WP:MUSIC.  Thus, without assurance that this information is verifiable, this article fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP.-- danntm T C 05:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:HOAX. Creator should be banned for vandalism as he also vandalized St. Ambrose College article. Shaundakulbara 08:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- M P er el ( talk 09:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If better sources for citation can be recommended, please do so. It is the determination of the creator to strive for accurecy and confirm notability 217.180.78.33 12:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Unregistered users may not participate in AfD discussions. Shaundakulbara 13:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Unregistered users may certainly participate. However, their comments may be disregarded if they do not conform with Wikipedia standards. Fan-1967 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Read the claims made under the controversies section of the article.  These references are fake, the article is vandalistic bullshit, User:Molotov146202148 is lying and any claims to the contrary come from co-conspirators. Shaundakulbara 13:03, 25 January 2007 (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.