Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kris Weston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — CharlotteWebb 07:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kris Weston

I suggest to delete the article for WP:LIVING:

“ Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."[1]

He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:

"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."[2]
 ”
.

By--Doktor Who 19:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - Kris Weston is obviously notable for his work as a member of The Orb and his extensive remix and production work for other bands/groups. All information in the article is cited, so I don't see any problem. Wickethewok 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikethewok who has already improved the article. Is this related to the anon blanking here? --Dhartung | Talk 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Kris Weston and I are email friends¸ he doesn´t want to stay here.Doktor Who 00:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, a desire to have a biographical article is not grounds for deletion, so that desire isn't likely to sway the argument. I suppose you could take Wikipedia to court over privacy concerns, but so far the consensus has been against the subject of an article desiring its deletion getting their wish. As far as the article goes, I don't see a problem with the content, but if you do think there are concerns, you can bring them up on the talk page. Notability, however, is likely to have been met, given the membership in The Orb which seems to be a marginally prominent band. FrozenPurpleCube 01:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I´m not sure...I will be awaiting for his opinion.---Doktor Who 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems to be pretty well sourced, notability is met it appears. I don't see what the issue is according to LIVING guidelines. Metros232 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree¸ it has been heavily re-edited after my rfd¸ I like it now¸ I am not sure if Weston will complain again. :D Doktor Who 03:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So, are you withdrawing your nomination? If so, this can be closed, and any further issues addressed on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 03:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to listen from him¸ sorry.Doktor Who 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

    • Well, as I said, his just wanting the article deleted has no weight with regards to deletion. But since you do claim to be in contact with him, if he was indeed the person who made the edits to the article, that his methods were highly inappropriate and should not be repeated. FrozenPurpleCube 04:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is clearly a notable person. As for WP:LIVING quoted by the nominator, I can't see any negative or contentious content in the article. I agree that the subject not wanting an article about himself is not grounds for deleting it. Jules1975 *11:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tendentious nomination by suspected sockpuppet with a long history of harrassment and vexatious wikilawyering. --Gene_poole 05:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as obviously notable rock musician, we have articles on far less notable rock musicians, SqueakBox 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Notable person"; fit for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. The subject should develop a thicker skin, and hopefully resist the temptation to edit his own entry. Gardener of Geda | Message Me.... 19:15, 7 March 2007 (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.