Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tranceluz

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. MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tranceluz[edit]

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

A musician. No refs about him, just the standard social media type sites. The record company he is CEO of, only has social media links. Article is a mess, therefore hard to understand what he has/hasn't done. Prod was removed. Bgwhite (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed. Article is a very poor piece of promotional/auto-biographical writing mostly likely self-written, and the artist in question has zero notability whatsoever. Cyanhat (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO, as per several source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is quite obvious and expected from the usual subject articles, nothing at all basically convincing and searches were not particularly necessary also since the article itself says it all, his own links are the sources and nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 07:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Source searches to qualify !votes in AfD discussions are actually a long-standing best practice and exercise in proper due diligence on Wikipedia to assess notability, as a cross-check to ensure that topics are actually notable or non-notable. As per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. However, in this case, I'm not finding any significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. It remains best to check for sources, to ensure an accurate encyclopedia based upon the principles of journalistic objectivity, versus having an encyclopedia based upon assumption alone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching under a variety of terms, including his real name turns up zero independent non-trivial sources. The subject comprehensively fails both WP:BASIC and the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Not only that, this is a BLP which is unverifiable, not just the extravagant claims, but also the most basic ones. I completely agree with North America's comment above. An AfD discussion should never be based on arguments like "This is so bad, it's not worth looking for sources" or "The sources in the article are bad, delete". If discussants are not prepared to put in even the most basic work required to come to an informed decision, then they shouldn't participate in the discussion. Observe José Tomás which was sent to AfD in this state. Lack of sources in the article and poor writing are not valid reasons for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2016 (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.