Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jude Rawlins

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. Sandstein 06:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Rawlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated for AfD by 81.178.88.149. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo 22:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Jude Rawlins, whoever he may be, is not prolific, interesting or significant. This page deserves to be removed as it spoils the entire wikipedia project, and was clearly written by Jude Rawlins himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.88.149 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2006
  • Note - The above anon editor has vandalized the page since nominating the AfD. Possibly bad-faith? Tevildo 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The nomination makes a nonstandard argument against notability. But the article lacks reliable sources -- this and Subterraneans (band) are both largely sourced from a self-published autobiography by Rawlins. There is an intriguing magazine profile, but by itself this apepars to fail WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, Rawlins and Subterraneans lack AllMusic entries, and the claim of multiple film soundtrack works seems to be unverifiable without more information. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the nominator's behavior disturbing, but I can see no reason to keep the article in anything like its current form. It doesn't truly demonstrate notability, uses weasel words (he was "involved" in a Madonna album), and appears to be narcissistic self-promotion. OinkOink 22:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the anon's edits to the article [1][2] , maybe [3], were merely informal and unverifiable -- I wouldn't call any of them vandalism. It was strange that the edits were after the unfinished AFD nom. --Dhartung | Talk 06:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 08:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, it urgently needs independent non-trivial sources or we will see it nominated again Alf photoman 17:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, per Alf. I looked at the Google list; it appears that this is much more than a vanity article, but no source has individually compelling credentials, and the overall g-hits are not by themselves compelling. What I'm seeing is enough to dispute the premise of the nomination. I would bet that there are sources which could be found by a motivated editor. --Kevin Murray 18:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or Merge Sorry to throw a new suggestion into the mix but it seems that the almost single note worth keeping on this guy is that he is/was the leader of a mildly notable band Subterraneans (band). THink about what is worth keeping. Most of it reads as a user page or as a resume.--Nick Y. 00:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Nick Y - difficult to justify keeping this in. Having looked at Subterraneans (band) which is the only notable justification for its presence I have to argue that Subterraneans itself has a pretty weak case for inclusion. I suspect both this and Subterraneans entries are vanity pieces and have numerous (cleverly worded) claimed associations, none of which have credible sources to substantiate their validity. If they did exist I'm sure they would be there, but suspect the clever wording is there to mask the non-existence of those sources in the first place. I know this sounds very cynical but I've seen a lot of this on Wikipedia and it annoys me!

Mixu L 11:22, 4 January 2007 (GMT)

• Delete Fails notability IMHO --BozMo talk 12:16, 8 January 2007 (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.