Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Milton

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. j⚛e deckertalk 06:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Milton[edit]

Gerald Milton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: Several comments have been posted here by CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppets of Dope99, the creator of the article. I am striking all but the first of these sockpuppet comments. Dope99 is free to make a single "keep" comment, although the fact that he/she chose to use a second account to do so is dubious, but using subsequent accounts to post further "keeps" is unambiguous abuse of multiple accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, a non-notable musician who has won non-notable awards. Stanleytux (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's certainly overly promotional at present, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. it could be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view -- Chieffo (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Chieffo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Chieffo is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Dope99. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I must commend, The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, but that does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the Boston Globe an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower.Justblaze54 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Justblaze54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • That's a new one, to me anyway! It really is an exact copy of something another editor wrote elsewhere: [1] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Justblaze54 is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of Dope99. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. No indication of any notability at all based on the current content. No record contract, two student awards of unknown notability for something musical, one self-released single of unknown notability, millions get BSc's. Kick his tush and Tush Award out of Wikipedia until he does something notable! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails the GNG, WP:BAND. Ya got to wonder why the SPAs bother. Nha Trang 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Delete: Wikipedia policy oriented Comments: Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ACADEMIC and all other policies I can think of at this moment.

Non-Wikipedia guidelines related Comments - Rubbish article. Everybody wants to sha sing in Nigeria. Someone should please tell these Covenant Kids to go find a cure for Ebola if they want to be notable on Wikipedia. What does the future hold for Nigeria if everyone is going into entertainment? Useless article. Yes I'm angry.

Note: Amadioha will strike anyone that replies me. "runs-away forever".Darreg (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Darreg no vex ooo! No be this boys fault, na naija Oo

Strong delete: The article is a mess! Subject of the article obviously fails WP:GNG. No evidence of meeting any notability criteria. Wikicology (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: are you kidding me? "Tush Awards"? "Ping Naija All Youth Awards"? ah! you go fear awards na. Fails WP:GNG.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerald_Milton&oldid=1083979032"