Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Moore Jr

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. WP:SNOW came early this year. So Why 08:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Moore Jr[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)

Article was written clearly as an Autobiography. The only claim of being notable is for being a photographer and filmmaker for a Koss Corporation. This individual does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly passing mentions about where he has performed. There are a few references that are more than that but I wouldn't say that is enough for the individual to meet the notable guidelines. It looks more like this individual is trying to become famous by have a Wikipedia article, instead of being famous enough to have a Wikipedia article.--VViking_TalkEdits 14:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of these sources convinces me that this passes WP:NBIO. shoy (reactions) 14:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Sources are of notable importance more specifically ones from new outlets such as OnMilwaukee, NBC, Shepherd Express, 88.9WMSE, 102.1FM, Light The Hoan as well as the podcasts. Individual is not Beyonce but this passes and many of the sources are of notable importance to notable events. (reactions) 11:20, 2 October 2018

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) .— JasonBillings (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs). Knightrises10 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user is a possible sock of the creator of this article. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the sources are not reliable. Knightrises10 (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do Not Delete~~ Knightrises10 Sources are reliable from credible news outlets. I have no COI or affiliation with article individual. 11:35, 2 October 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBillings (talk • contribs) — JasonBillings (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Martinmoorejr (talk • contribs).

Duplicate !vote struck. Please only make one bolded comment. shoy (reactions) 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Strip out the blogs and puffery, and there's nothing there; no criticism, no commentary, and those few sources that do qualify as reliable sources in general are just passing mentions. There are sources to demonstrate that he exists; there's nothing as it stands to indicate that he's significant in Wikipedia's terms. ‑ Iridescent 16:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not find relevance for the topic as perWP:GNG and the source do not seem to be credibleVinodbasker (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)*[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Obvious self promotion. Looks like the author has since been blocked for sock puppetry. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's put aside the charge of self-promotion for a moment. There's little or no evidence of notability. (But for anyone interested in the self promotion, Sockpuppet_investigations/Martinmoorejr links Martinmoorejr and JasonBillings.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7. This is looking like it's going to be a WP:SNOW close for delete so maybe it makes no difference now. Since JasonBillings has been confirmed to be a WP:SOCK of the article's creator and JasonBillings made this edit, this should probably be deleted asap per A7. WP:AUTO or WP:COI doesn't matter at all because of the socking and removal of the template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It should have went up to WP:G5 for deletion, as its confirmed sock(s). The revision deletion is too damaged to keep it. scope_creep (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what G5 means. The G5 deletion criterion means we can (not "must") delete pages which a banned user created after their ban; it definitely does not mean we engage in damnatio memoriae and wipe that user's contributions from before they were blocked. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When your right, your right. I must have been drunk last night. It is G11 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Martinmoorejr. scope_creep (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sock spam. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2018 (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.