Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Klein

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 debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Klein

Delete. Apparently self-authored biography. Frequently vandalized (check history), personal attacks made on author(s), incorrect, useless as viable information due to the frequency and persistency of vandals, unsuitable for a public forum. Jhabrem 01:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep We don't delete articles due to vandalism or difficulty of maintenance, and autobiography is discouraged but not prohibited. Getty Images is notable, and its co-founder probably is too. — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep notable, per Adrian. FCYTravis 06:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. For reference, I don't dispute any of the claims of the nomination; however, none of them are grounds for deletion. -ikkyu2 (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, many articles like George W. Bush and Tony Blair are often vandalised, does that mean we nominate those articles for deletion. --Terence Ong 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough for mine, However, we might need a disambiguation page given that the US President of CNN is also called Jonathan Klein and a search for "Jonathan Klein" CNN gets 36,400 hits [1]. Capitalistroadster 10:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and keep seems notable but the article needs cleaning. --Tone 16:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. If an article is frequently vandalised, we have tools to control that; deletion is not one of them. Hall Monitor 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm wary when it says "the company has become the most profitable and succesfull in the business" without sources. Willing to revisit if someone cleans it up, but for now this is an uncited POV mess. -Jcbarr 04:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with strong cleanup. -- Krash (Talk) 15:35, 28 February 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.