Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonny Moore (2nd nomination)

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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Moore[edit]

This is a self-promotional vanity article LifeStar 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD 1

Keep I see no evidence of vanity or self-promotional edits going on with this article. It does need sources, yes, but the subject is notable enough to warrant an article and I don't see the issues that the nomination suggests. Metros232 18:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few months ago some wiki admins went through the process of removing self-promotional and vanity pages. These pages dealt with bloggers, independent bands, and other non-notable article entries on wiki. I've never heard of this person before and only found it because of a random article edit by an vandal anon user I was tracking. This article should be removed. --LifeStar 18:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "I've never heard of it before" and "there's a lot of vandalism on that page" are not reasons to delete an article. Metros232 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Those are my reasons, as this is really an opinion vote from other wiki users. I see the page as a vanity page, it fits from how I understood the wiki policies on listing deletion entries. Either case, this is to be left up to the community. --LifeStar 18:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - only sources provided are his band's site, his MySpace, and an "unofficial fan site", hence no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to meet WP:MUSIC. Whether it's a vanity page is largely irrelevant; delete unless appropriate sources are found by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the From First To Last page and redirect for now. If he breaks out on his own, maybe then this can be turned into a more substantive and sourced article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is obviously a notable musician and there is no evidence of any vanity edits. Suspecting bad faith nomination. Grue 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the article about the band. There are no independent sources on which to base a separate article nor does he appear to meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria for a separate biography. (By the way, the article desperately needs a cleanup. Not currently being "on good terms with his adoptive parents" is not encyclopedic material.) Rossami (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No problems at all. Xanucia 22:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Since the band is notable and was their lead and front man, he's notable. As he was the lead vocalist, many of the independent sources I see about the band could be easily applied to Moore himself, as well. If he were still with the band, then I'd probably agree a separate bio isn't really necessary. Now that he's left them, though, it doesn't seem inappropriate for details of his biography to be in their article. The article does need a good sourcing, and its specific content does need to be cleaned up to be made more encyclopedic, though. Mwelch 23:57, 4 April 2007 (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.