Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Kirsch

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Kirsch

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

Refs in article do not appear to support a viable notability claim. The first two are links to places which only mention the subject but provide no depth of coverage, the third is a discography listing from Allmusic.com (again, no depth), the fourth and fifth come from the subject's own website (lack of independence), and the sixth is a press release (which defines lack of independence). Article needs multiple references in independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in depth in order to justify retaining it. There appears to be some evidence that the subject's work is notable, but this does not make the subject himself notable. That the article was originally created by a WP:SPA (of User:Mufcseo123) over the course of two days back in 2013 strongly suggests that the article was the result of some undisclosed paid editing. The article creator was clearly a skilled editor, but just as clearly was not using his main account to write this article, which while not technically a violation of policy in most respects... (fill in the blank there). I will be very surprised if he rears his head in this discussion. The trio of "I'm me" external links (Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter) combined with the inadequacy of the references provided (several of which have failed verification) would seem to consolidate this fact. Let's ditch this. KDS4444^Talk 08:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst✈^(discuss) 15:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now at best as there isn't even anything to suggest minimally better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 refs only - 2 are to own website, 2 are questionable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (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.