Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qua z mo

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 speedied by RHaworth. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qua z mo

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

WP:BLP of a musician, making no claim of notability that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. The only "source" here, further, is a 14-word blurb on the "demo songs" website of a software company with which he has a direct business relationship — which makes it a primary source, not a reliable and independent one. So this isn't even close to passing WP:GNG in lieu of failing NMUSIC. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not sure why this wasn't CSD'ed this has no claims at all of notability. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While obviously it wasn't enough of a claim of notability to get the article kept, my considered opinion as the nominator was that the "song included in notable software package" part was sufficient to force AFD over speedy. An article doesn't have to make a strong claim of notability to escape speedy — even a claim of notability that would slamdunk fail our actual inclusion criteria can still be enough to force a full AFD instead of an instant delete, because any claim of notability at all, even a weak one, precludes speedy. Regardless, a different administrator has now speedied the article, so I'm closing this accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2015 (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.