Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy J.P. Moses

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 credible assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Billy J.P. Moses

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

"Actor/Radio personality" of questionable notability. Article is wriiten like an advertisement, and disguises certain key points - claims to have worked for CNN are false, as coverage is from CNN's iReport, which is user-submitted video. No independent or verifiable third-party sources provided for other claims of notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question does lake verifiable sources, but I am in the process of posting them. NorthernNine (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable third-party sources have been added to the article. NorthernNine (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The majority of the article was copyvio and has now been removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For stable documentation of copyright issues, see [1]. Contributor has been advised appropriate means of verifying license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I feel a certain degree of sympathy for someone new to editing Wikipedia who puts a lot of effort into trying to make an article on a non-notable article acceptable, only to see their efforts dismissed. However, there is unfortunately no evidence at all of notability. the "references" currently given in the article are: A link to Billy Moses's own web site; two links to the same imdb page; a blog post which mentions Billy Moses, but does not give any support to any statement to which it is attached; a dead link; a link to a television clip telling us that he was one of the thousands who won tickets to the Michael Jackson tribute; a link to a video clip of him commenting on that Jackson tribute; a link to iTunes previews where we can access Moses's material if we like (not to a source which gives independent coverage of Moses); a link to a school's online "handbook" which does not even mention Billy Moses, but is attached to a statement that his mother works for a school district (incidentally the handbook does not mention her either, though it would be irrelevant as a source on him even it it did). That is all. None of this comes anywhere within a thousand miles of being significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and much of it is neither significant nor reliable nor independent. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above list of "current" references was correct when I started checking them and preparing the above post, but while I was doing so the article was heavily edited, so the list may possibly not have been correct when I clicked "save". Nevertheless, a quick skim of the references available now suggests much the same situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I on the other hand feel no sympathy whatsoever. What I see here is someone trying to game the wikipedia system, to get his 15 minutes of fame. (For the record - AGF went west when I saw Northern Nine warning off someone who was merely trying to remove coyvios from the article - baad fail.) The Northern Nine Radio Network itself seems to be non notable; much less notable are those who make prograammes for it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now seen much more of NorthernNine's editing history than I had when I wrote the above comment about "a certain degree of sympathy". I was assuming good faith, but I have now seen enough evidence of bad faith that I agree with Tagishsimon. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user is playing games. He's A7 in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.125.57 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2010 (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.