Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Untouchable DJ Drastic


 * 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. discounting socks it's a obvious G11 Secret account 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Untouchable DJ Drastic

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

unsourced, self promotion, I see no real claim to notability, just a lot of association with other notable people, notability is not inherited. search shows nothing past self promotion Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep This page meets guidelines WP:Music although the subject is a multi-faceted professional. Editors that express their opinions outside of technical guidelines should not be deemed valid. (i.e. “Delete for all of the above reasons. It sucks that this article has lasted 2 months here before being brought to AfD. This sort of thing drastically lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and devalues the good work done by responsible editors.”)

This article does not devalue editor contributions. The article needs revisal although most recent page revisal seems satisfactory.

As an editor, you should improve the article. Editors some times tend to act as as Wiki terminators. Secure this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedia-Wikki (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

More references would be ideal. I do not feel this page should be deleted at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieAmaze (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not delete page but instead add references

The Untouchable DJ Drastic is one of New York's most prominent talents. Keep this page. I don't feel this page promotes him at all. I tend to observe that some editors on Wikipedia hate on certain pages that they are unfamilar with themselves. This is fact. I'm not saying anyone in particular is doing so although it's very easy to nominate pages for deletion. If that is the case then anytime you review a person's bio, it would be considered "Promotion" - {{User:Millz Jae|Millz Jae} 01:00 10 December 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millz Jae (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Page / Do Not Delete

This article elaborates on a majority of Daniel M. Johnson (The Untouchable DJ Drastic)’s professional work within the entertainment and media industries. I am reading the user talk and additional comments regarding this article, I feel that this article does not promote the subject. It elaborates on his professional outlets. I recently touched up a few of the paragraphs in order to save the article.
 * Secure Article

The user below stated that the article displays that the subject has affiliation to notable people although I feel that it is notable people that have affiliation to the subject and/or are notable as a result of the subject.

This page has been vandalized before and while Wikipedia is a user maintained. I feel that this page should be secured as the subject is a media professional.

The subject’s references are valid.

-Wiki Revisals 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Revise Article This article should be re-written and additional references should be made available. Some of the user talk listed below seems draconian to me. This page has been vadalized in the past and should be revised for appropriate insertion but not deleted. JessicaWiki 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete and I would say speedy under WP:CSD, no assertion of notability, but there is a long history, so I guess CSD can't apply. And I smell WP:COI. This is reads like a chaps self-written resume. Charles D. Ward (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sadly I can't agree with A7, G11 may apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for all of the above reasons. It sucks that this article has lasted 2 months here before being brought to AfD.  This sort of thing drastically lowers the credibility of Wikipedia and devalues the good work done by responsible editors. Boston (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Revise Article This article should be re-written and additional references should be made available. Some of the user talk listed below seems draconian to me. This page has been vadalized in the past and should be revised for appropriate insertion but not deleted.

and I would say speedy under WP:CSD, no assertion of notability, but there is a long history, so I guess CSD can't apply. And I smell WP:COI. This is reads like a chaps self-written resume. Charles D. Ward (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sadly I can't agree with A7, G11 may apply. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Revise Article This articuleI disagree and this page should be re-written


 * SOCK PUPPETRY - Please note apparent (I would say "obvious") sock puppetry of User:Wiki Revisals, User:Pedia-Wikki, User:JackieAmaze, and User:Millz Jae - all are single-use accounts for the purpose of commenting on this discussion and none of them know how to correctly record and sign their comments so as not to mess up the format of the whole page. Boston (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Add User:JessicaWiki to that list. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was on my way to doing that when we edit conflicted. /c:  Boston (talk) 10:30, 10 December 2008 (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.