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. Cirt (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Hot Rod

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article. Artist fails WP:MUSICBIO. Has never charted. Article sounds like it was written by a friend or fan and manages to pimp his website in the process. Did sign to a notable label, but hasn't done anything. Was supposed to have a release in Feb 2008. Almost 2 years later, it still hasn't happened. General lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Forgot to mention that Billboard shows nothing for him other than a very poorly written bio. No albums, no singles. No credits. Nothing. Allmusic shows one single for him in 2006 that did not chart. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, PLUS... It should be noted that the only two sources actually cited with ref tags are bad links, the second of which I had to remove because when I clicked on it, it actually said "NOT FOUND BITCH". I am not kidding. Check the history/diffs for yourself. The other links at the bottom of the page are equally irrelevant or immaterial/non-substantial, such as the Vibe article which does not actually link to an article. I searched Google News archives and found out a lot of information about young car racing enthusiasts. Ugh what a horrible wreck this one really is. If it can some how magically be fixed, please do leave me a note on my talk page so I can reconsider! Given everything I and the nom have written thus far, this is a strong endorsement for deletion. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (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.