Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Kilminster

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 of the nomination was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Kilminster

Okay, people. Please listen carefully: this article is in a dreadful, dreadful, self-inflicted-by-the-author-who-is-the-subject state. That is not why it is here. Articles such as this can be cleaned up. This article is here to establish whether it is worth doing so: is the subject notable or not? There's an assertion of notability of sorts right at the bottom. Please judge whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is any use to man or beast. Thanks. No opinion is being stated by me - I just want to know whether this is worth me cleaning up, watching and looking after or not :o) ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but clean up, the POV stuff at the top is annoying and violates WP:NOT, but I think he makes it by WP:MUSIC. Ditch the junk and expand upon the stuff at the bottom. HumbleGod 20:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Addendum: The cleaned up version is much easier to swallow. Could still use some citations, but looks like it squeaks past WP:MUSIC. HumbleGod 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Question I am concerned by the notation with respect to copyright and editing at the top of the article. Does this mean that copyright permission is granted only so long as nobody edits the article without contacting him? This is unacceptable at a wiki. If the article is kept (and it does seem to just meet WP:MUSIC) the notice limiting editing needs to go. JChap (Talk) 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The denial of permission to edit superscedes any notability the subject may have. Deletion and starting from scratch is the only way to go. --DarkAudit 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly the copyrighted material, which is obviously not being released under GFDL, has to go. And, from the remaining bit of genuine text at the bottom, he seems to be little more than a session musician - thousands of them out there, none of whom have entries here. Tevildo 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Guitarist of the Year from a prominent magazine pretty much passes WP:MUSIC. --DarkAudit 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with blanking of everything except the Wikipedia-esque bio on the bottom of the page, then find a way to reintegrate the content above it. I'd be willing to do this, but I want to wait for opinions of my plan first. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And keep the picture, of course. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep contingent on the fact that the anon who keeps reverting the article to a terrible state by including his material can be silenced. It passes WP:MUSIC and is definatly notable, but if you try to remove this person's material (like I did), they just restore it. --Bill (who is cool!) 01:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Contact subject of article at davektourinfo@aol.com, as it says in the "there are NO copyright violations on this page" notice, and make sure they understood the "You agree to license all submissions under the GFDL" and "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" notices which are visible every time you edit. Also keep. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The part that was copyrighted was the part that I have since eliminated because it was inappropriate for Wikipedia. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sure he did understand this. That was the reason for the disclaimer. JChap (Talk) 11:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly keep becouse he's undoubtedly notable. I put there wikify - cleanup on 1st July, before me, none had ever noticed the mess in this article. I will restore some of the content that has been lost in a proper manner (just a few sentences). --Doktor Who 03:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep meets notability by satisfying WP:MUSIC, salute to Messedrocker for being bold in removing the text. Yanksox 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the guy seems notable, and the article looks nice and clean now.--Konstable 10:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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.