Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D4nny

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. Sam Walton (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D4nny

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

Being bad at something can be a basis for notability - cf. William McGonagall. But is this kid bad enough to be notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Satisfies WP:GNG, has coverage in a multitude of sources, and has had a rather enduring impact, see [1] where they mention him in a retrospective in 2015. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:23, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E; subject does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT, only known for one very, very bad YouTube video. A flash in the pan, not a "cult" following - just a lot of people who could not believe what they saw. No encyclopedic notability here. Scr★pIron^IV 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. There may be a case for an article about the single YouTube music video, but there is nothing in the way of non-trivial biographical coverage of this subject as a person, who is otherwise unknown outside the scope of this one song. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as there are simply no signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oppose #2 - The song could perhaps be a notable article but as it stands the bloke isn't, Fails BLP1E.–Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BLP1E. Davey2010 hits the nail on the head. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:58, 8 October 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.