Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Osborne

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Osborne[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)

WP:BLP of a musician not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The closest thing to a legitimate notability claim here is producing a notable album, which isn't an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about him -- but the only footnotes are discogs.com and Spotify, neither of which are notability-building sources, and the article is otherwise so highly advertorialized that I'd have speedy deleted it as a G11 if it hadn't existed for a full decade already.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better than this, and the POV here is so egregious that even if he could be salvaged with better sourcing the article would have to be completely rewritten from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the unsourced trivia seems to be written based on inside knowledge thus indicating a COI, if not an autobiography. Promotional. Limited but insufficient notability. Google search suggests that he might not even be the most notable person by that name. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing about this person, but the wall of text without citations is something to see. At the very least OR, or complete bunk. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Seems written by someone with a COI given the wall of text without supporting references. Also note that there is canvassing here. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2022 (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.