Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy Castillo

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 keep. WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 21:12, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Castillo

[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)

Violates Wikipedia:Verifiability as almost the entire article is unsourced. Also violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as there appears to be editorial bias and non-encyclopedic tone spread throughout the article in its entirety. Finally, the article is in violation of Wikipedia:No original research as this appears to have been told in a story format instead of an encyclopedia format without any sources which would indicate some original research. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 21:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, there are problems aplenty with neutrality and sources, and it indeed strikes me as original research as well. Yet the subject itself is notable per WP:MUSICBIO criteria #6. The unsourced/unreliable stuff should be excised, but there are obituaries in Billboard and Rolling Stone so an acceptable article could be sourced to those. I think the solution is to first try to fix the article rather than delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lots of OR in the article that needs to go, but the subject is notable and there are enough sources to be able to create a decent article about him – there's also this article from Ultimate Classic Rock [1] and he's even had a documentary film made about his life which has played at international film festivals [2]. Richard3120 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade. The lack of action is why I nominated this for deletion. Either someone needs to work on it and fix the major violations of policy or it needs deleted. The current article is unacceptable and to be honest I don't know how this is considered B class with the lack of in text references.Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figfires, that's a fair point about the B-class rating - it was done eleven years ago by Wizardman and maybe it's because in those days Wikipedia's rating standards were lower... I just wonder out of interest if he would rate it B-class now. If no-one else beats me to it I'll try and remove the OR next week and add some sources. Richard3120 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figfires "Someone needs to do work on it because those templates have been there for almost a decade" - couldn't agree more, but Wikipedia is chock full of that sort of thing and deleting an article because it's crap is not policy and would probably not gain consensus to be one, however worthwhile the argument is. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since Castillo is notable, but his page needs a lot of work. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources - and he's worked with the Prince of Fucking Darkness. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a classic case of WP:NEXIST, as the lack of sources currently in an article is not proof that the subject is non-notable; it's just proof that nobody added them yet. A WP:BEFORE search by the nominator would have easily revealed the sources located by the other voters above, indicating that the article needs to be cleaned up and improved, not deleted. Per WP:NEGLECT you don't have to wait for someone else to fix it then condemn it when they don't. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:53, 17 August 2018 (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.