Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zacky Vengeance


 * 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 redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. (non-admin closure) f eminist 14:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Zacky Vengeance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested redirect & contested PROD. Not individually notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I do find some short entries in guitar player magazines and a few others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 04:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 04:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Avenged Sevenfold. Everything written about this musician is connected to the band Avenged Sevenfold. Zacky Vengeance has not seen fame from beyond his connection to the band. Binksternet (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep needs more information, deleting is the wrong way Norschweden (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, was the editor who contested the redirect and PROD of the article. Please supply this "more information" rather than claim it simply needs more. My argument is that there isn't more information, which is why it's best to delete the article. See GNG and MUSICBIO linked above for what sort of information we need. Without that, it seems obvious that the article would need to be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "would need to be deleted" in an encyclopedia this is rediculus. there is more information about him, and even that what is there at the moment is enough to keep the article imo, most musicians have articles with the same length/information mass Norschweden (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry you feel that way. Unless you can actually show that there's more information about the subject, the article will have to be deleted. Just because there are articles about musicians with the same length or information mass, but are similarly unsourced is not a reason to keep this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * i never got why wikipedia has so much double standart, is it so hard to use the same rules for all articles? both of them are importent personalities and the articles feature information that is not featured in the avenged sevenfold article. I dont have time to write the article. Norschweden (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have time to find the sources? That's the underlying issue. The state of the article is not the issue in any AfD discussion, the notability of the subject is. We prove the subject's notability with sources. If sources can be found, then the subject is notable and someone else (maybe even me) will update the saved article. If not, the community usually determines that the subject doesn't deserve an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Galobtter (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect Weighing in per the multiple relistings. Bottom line: There simply are not any signs this subject is notable outside of his involvement with this band. Indeed, my google search returned ample hits for his name, each one connect him to Avenged Sevenfold. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2017 (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.