Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Reidy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep the disambiguation page (which was never properly the subject of this AfD) now that the hijack of the page for another subject has been reverted. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Reidy[edit]

David Reidy (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)

Violates all three policies in WP:BLP, and no sources cited. I've done a bit of good-faith research on the claims in the article and was unable to verify them. While this person does have a channel as described in the article, the content is minimum and not notable enough for an encyclopedic article. Rosalina2427 (talk to me) 00:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:A7. Despite the article's unsourced claims, a quick search reveals that the musician doesn't have a single entry on any notable music chart. Newslinger (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've reverted the self-promotional spam edits and restored the article to its previous state as a disambiguation page. Newslinger (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Newslinger. All the article needed was his reverts. MB190417 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.