Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeejayDj

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. Davewild (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeejayDj[edit]

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

This article's factual accuracy is disputed and if not found to be a hoax, it may fail WP:NMG. The Snowager-is awake 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything out there except social media and ads for wedding music services. And everything in the article is either a dead link or a non-reliable source. The ones that are not don't even mention the subject at all. Coupled with the very fancruft promotional language and the fact that this is very essentially an unsourced BLP in the end, I'd say delete. We can't have a bio where we're not even sure if the person exists, nevermind meeting WP:MUSICBIO at least. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax but certainly not notable. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:21, 16 May 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.