Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Hanlon

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 per WP:GNG Mandsford 21:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Hanlon

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

Non-notable person, fails music notability and is written from a non-neutral point of view Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable musician, fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and written by the subject himself. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:BAND. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is here. This isn't some ego trip, I have stated nothing but facts. I may not be a 'noteable' musician on a large scale yet, but i feel i have accomplished enough so far to justify a very small article. The intentions behind it were simply to offer a very brief history for the benefit of my followers and for future followers i gain as a result of several things that are in the pipeline for the remainder of this year. There will certainly be a lot more to update in the near future, but i'm not in a position right now where i can disclose those details. This is out of my hands but i strongly feel that removal of this article is not only unfair but also ignorant! - Kennyh7. 22:53pm, 28th August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennyh7 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny, this project is an encyclopedia. There is a lot of free space on internet where you can inform your followers. Good luck with your career. Greetings from a musician who doesn't have an article here :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but we aren't ignorant. We know the rules of Wikipedia - and I'm afraid this article fails them. We are not saying you are not being factual. One self-released record doesn't confer enough notability for an article - and you give no references that might show any more. We get a lot of people in the music business putting up articles, and being very disappointed when they are deleted. A common claim is that notability is just round the corner, and sometimes that leaving the article would help that corner to be reached. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, though, and it is in the business of recording things that have 'made it', rather than the 'nearly theres'. Wikipedia is also not for promoting things, and articles are ideally 'about' not 'by' their subject. I do note that you have been factual rather than promotional in style, but the facts aren't enough just yet. Come back when you have a bit more achievement - and references from outside reliable sources to show it. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC) (PS - As with the above poster, I don't have an article about my music either...)[reply]
Delete - Zero footnotes on a BLP is an automatic fail, even if it is created by the subject, which is another issue of concern... Unverifiable, plain and simple. Good luck with your career though. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP, with no Google news or books or scholar hits that pertain to this person (a couple books hits from 1872 obviously do not apply to this person...) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 29 August 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.