Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk Baxley

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. Not notable but also not generic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Baxley

[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)

Non-notable generic person. Fails. WP:NBIO, WP:GNG related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baxley_(Musical_Artist) Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Graywalls (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usable sources are not there yet. BD2412 T 02:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxley (Musical Artist). They are the same guy and non-notable twice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxley (Musical Artist). Pichpich (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per directly above, I was unable to find any independent, reliable sources (fails GNG), nor is there any indication ANYBIO or any criteria of NMUSIC is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the nominator, while this artist may not have had a high-flying career as a musician, they are still a human being. Please never call an individual a "generic person" in a deletion discussion. It's dehumanizing. We can critique an article and an article subject for its notability without suggesting that they are generic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 16 January 2023 (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.