Talk:James Masterton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 April 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

— anthony^[review] 02:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is totally biased. He is one of the least informed reviewers that I have ever come across. He has no clue as to the merits of dance music and favours commerical pop over any other genre stating, for example, that Atomic Kitten's The Tide Is High (one of the most lamentable covers of all time) was a "worthy number one"! Triangle e 00:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have had much response to this discussion point, and out of curiosity I did a quick search on this individual to see what kind of views other people have. A quick google search throws up comments relating to him such as "very insightful", "I think he's spot on here", "expert chart commentary" suggesting that whilst he might not be always agreed with, he is held in high regard by those that follow his work. In addition, your rationale for putting a NPOV tag on the article seems to be based on a comment he made about one record several years ago that you happen to persoanlly disagree with, hardly the basis for casting doubt on the balance of an entire article. In my view I don't think the argument of bias is sustainable. The piece is a well worded statement of fact about an online writer and critic. Nothing more. Unless you can come up with a more persuasive argument as to why the piece is NPOV or suggest an alternative wording, I am inclined to remove the tag. --81.135.225.149 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had much response to this discussion point because he is totally non-notable and its shocking that he has a wikipedia entry in the first place! I have absolutely no idea where you looked to come to the conclusion that he is a chart expert. He's useless and is infamous for making mistakes. And besides, it doesn't matter what you or I think about his ability to critique chart records, comments saying that he is "popular for the depth and scope of his weekly analysis and for his wit" etc. are by definition POV. If you want examples of the numbers of mistakes he has made go to www.chcmedia.com (or indeed any other chart based discussion forum, like haven, chart freaks, buzzjack or moopy) and search for "Masterson". http://www.chcmedia.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7195 <---- here's a good example of about 4 mistakes that he made in one article. Triangle e 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Just to say, I put the article up for speedy deletion. There's no referenced sources to say he's noteable in anyway, more importantly there's no referenced sources to say this man even has a clue what he's talking about with chart music. And the article doesn't have much content.

Freely discuss, message me if you need me. GrahamGRA 21:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a candidate for speedy deletion. Whether or not he "has a clue what he's talking about" is not relevant if he meets the criteria of WP:BIO. If it does need deleting, that should be done through WP:AFD, not speedy. Angela. 23:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• The external links are not sources to anything specific. The information is not relative to the article. It IS a candidate for speedy deletion. Overall it's admins decision, you can use the { {handon} } tag if needs be. But the information isn't sourced. External links don't cut it. Oh and his own website isn't going to be a reliable source now is it? It's falls under the category of self-endorsement. GrahamGRA 23:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Lack of sources does not make an article a candidate for speedy deletion. Angela. 00:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely should be deleted. Completely nn. Triangle e 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)