The article is composed substantially of gross copyright violations, which are composed mostly of grossly unencyclopedic text. It's made of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR trivia. The article's original GAN discussion consists of people naming which articles around the Internet that they were planning on plagiarizing. I'm fairly sure that it was never in any way a legitimate Good article. I have no experience in these matters, but I can't let it stand, so I invite others to take over. Thanks! — Smuckola(Email)(Talk)18:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - There's a ton of unsourced content in the article, most notably the "Early years" section. Other parts are long meandering lists rather than well written prose. This GAN comes from 2007, when the standards were much looser. Article seems more like a current day C-class. Sergecross73msg me21:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: there are a number of unreferenced areas in the article, so it probably doesn't meet the fully referenced requirement. As this is a BLP the unreferenced areas may potentially need to be removed (which would also impact upon the stability criterion). Additionally, some of the citations, such as "play the drum solo perfectly. [1]" and "already unique capabilities.[5] " use a manual system that make it difficult to determine if they still relate to the automatically numbered citations, which therefore also impacts on verifiability. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: It is clear that the referencing is far from adequate, and fails to meet the GA requirements on a number of levels. Indeed, a number of quotes do not have references immediately after the sentences they appear in or as, which is quite troubling. What I don't find is any evidence of "gross copyright violations". When I ran the copyvio tool, the copying identified seemed to me to be copying of Wikipedia by the other sources. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
