Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Delirious

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, no assertion of notability (being a selfpublished author is not such an assertion). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Delirious

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable living person. As discussed on the talk page, I tried looking for sources, but I could only find sources about a crime conviction for one event, which is not sufficient notability for an article according to WP:BLP1E. The original text of the article was promotional. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW PianoDan (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. While it's too early to forecast snow, this self-published author appears unlikely to cross those thresholds in the next few days. - Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR and WP:BEFORE reveals little. Agreed too early for snow. Mkdw ^talk 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced BLP. should be speedy delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtwfan52 (talk • contribs)

Comment. I previously tried proposing deletion using WP:BLPPROD, but the tag was removed due to not fitting with those specialized rules. Would it have been OK to do a normal PROD on the article as a next step instead of an AfD? WP:PROD says "It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD", so I went with the cautious choice. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the BLPPROD was removed. There are 0 sources on the article. Possibly some wise admin will see this discussion and speedy delete it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, completely non-notable. GregJackP Boomer! 14:14, 10 January 2013 (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.