Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Arthur Maxwell

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Arthur Maxwell[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable 3rd party coverage since creation in 2016. Autobio. Maxwell has requested deletion and/or move to his new name. Delete and salt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier version of the article was a direct copy of the subject's old autobiography, and now the subject wants to change this to a copy of the subject's new autobiography. This is not reliable sourcing, and is exactly why we do not rely upon autobiographies. I cannot find anything that we can rely upon, as what little there is turns out to be advertising. Advertising and autobiography are not independent sources. We should not have either Brad Fillatre or Bradley Arthur Maxwell articles at all. Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article does not demonstrate notability. The subject's views are irrelevant. If the subject becomes notable using his new name, a new article may then be created. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search under both names turn up multiple online download stuff, online "premieres" and social media but no significant coverage. Sparks is not a significant label, and the article's attempt to make it one by pointing out that it is a subsidiary of Universal Music Group still doesn't make it a significant label. Bottom line: No RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2019 (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.