Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb haskell

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb haskell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely escapes the speedy deletion criteria but this should still be deleted. This teenager is simply not notable and some of the claims are preposterous. For instance the article says that in 2013, he had a number 1 Billboard single as a 14 year old. In fact, iTunes has never heard the name "Caleb haskell". The article is currently entirely unreferenced and it's pretty clear from the username that the editor is editing with a conflict of interest. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced article, whose only substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC is verifiably false — in addition to iTunes, I checked Billboard's chart archive and there's no indication of him ever having a charting hit there either. While a Google search verifies that he exists per social media presence, there's zero reliable source coverage — basically, this is a classic case of "musician who wants to use Wikipedia for PR purposes creates article containing false or self-aggrandizing claims that aren't actually verifiable as true". Delete, no prejudice against recreation, in a more neutral, encyclopedic and properly referenced form, in the future if and when he can actually be properly sourced as passing NMUSIC for something. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.