Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Wolfe

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Wolfe

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

I'm not finding any substantial, independent coverage via Google to establish notability under WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, and none is given in the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suprised no-one tagged it as a hoax. Delete - non-notable Gbawden (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's a hoax? Ignoring the April 1 story at the top of the page, he's got a website and social media pages. I see no reason to doubt his existence. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax seems very unlikely- here's a local write-up, for example - but I am not finding enough coverage to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gong show 21:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing more than yet another CV thinly disguised as a Wikipedia article. --YasminPerry (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC) Struck as returning blocked user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, tweet about it from the artist. James of UR (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find much to substantiate a pass against WP:GNG. Almost none of what is in the article now is verified by reliable sources and should be deleted either way. Stalwart111 07:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:07, 10 April 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.