Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Johnson (Singer)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 March 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Johnson (Singer)[edit]

not notable; Google search finds few articles about this Jordan Johnson but a lot about other ones. Gmatsuda (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/userfy This article was created just two days ago and it's not in a particularly good state to keep, but there's other issues. 1) It's a common name, so it's easy for search results to be contaminated. 2) He's signed with a notable label and has one album out. To make up for not having two albums his personal bio on his website [1] suggests he's done more, like writing music for notable artists. Although I don't think it's suitable in its current form, I believe deleting now would discourage the creator from possibly contributing further articles which may be worthy of inclusion if properly formatted and written. Userfication and a gentle pointer seem to be more productive. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that someone connected with the subject and/or his label created this article, I don't believe your justification is a valid one. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 09:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. This one isn't even close! - 71.138.125.138 (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: user vanity? Either way artist fails to establish notability, per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Delete - per the above discussion. Please get this over with and LET the IP's votes count if it is good faith edits and not vandalism. Versus22_talk 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Versus22, could you please read the background on this article? The IP votes were discounted because they were all sockpuppets of the nominator, who was banned for extensive socking and vote-stacking on AFDs he had started. There is no dispute over this. I don't know why that wasn't noted in the relisting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:MUSIC because 1) has a Billboard-charting album and 2) has an extensive touring track record. Article contributor(s) should be give a chance to repair any defects, because shortly after the article was created, it was subjected to a disruptive and inappropriate deletion campaign by the now-banned user. Mgm's comments in the original discussion are very much on target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Nothing at Allmusic [2], and the Billboard claims aren't backed up on the Billboard website, [3]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to meet notability guidelines. ₳dam Zel 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the mistreatment of the article writer by the sockpuppeteer, I think a decent interval should be given for the writer to provide sources. On balance, the article now is mostly harmless. If in 90 days it's not fixed, "kill it with fire." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 20:24, March 14, 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 as blatant misinformation. Hollywood Records doesn't list him, and a search for "Jordan Johnson" "Hollywood Records" turned up bupkis. The chart positions are 100% bogus as well. (Comment: This had also been tagged by {{TempUndelete}} but it was never listed at DRV.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Lack of notability: the claims that are made in the article fail verification. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2009 (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.