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. - Mailer Diablo 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick palomar[edit]

Derrick palomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Contested prod. Nominating for deletion on grounds that the article seems to be a hoax. It's not a case of notability concerns; the artist does not generate any Google hits, barring the Wikipedia article. There are no websites that mention him. He isn't mentioned in any blogs. His records are not available for sale on any website and his works do not feature on any playlists. I should also note that the edits that removed the prod tag also changed the references, after I had questioned the validity of one on the talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Correction I challenged the validity of one of the references in the original prod tag and not the talk page. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the references seem bogus, as I noted in the talk page; two of them do not mention him and the third book (which I couldn't check) is credited to an author who wrote a review of it. And absolutely nothing on Google on him or any of his family members. Sci girl 22:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a Hoax - I am aquainted with this man and can vouch that all of the facts on this page seem to be legitimate. The only reason that i can come up with that he is not generating any google hits is that he has been out of the industry for a good amount of time. Because he lost the rights to his music and has been more concerned with helping bring his uncle to health than put out new records his records havent been available in stores for years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.15.231 (talk • contribs) *
  • Comment Unfortunately, a lot of the information, presented as fact in the article, seems highly dubious. For example, searching for the Wimbledon School of Praise and Gifts on Google produces no results for a seminary or any other educational establishment. The "Security in Christ" musical tour produces no results. The record company, which only folded in 2001 according to the article, produces no results. The links provided with the article either don't work, link to a page about Leeds in general, or go to the home page of sites that have no mention of Derrick Palomar when searched. Nothing in this article seems verifiable at all. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 20:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Even if not a hoax, the article provides no evidence of notability. Peterkingiron 23:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable or hoax—either way, it goes. Closenplay 01:49, 4 June 2007 (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.