Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Milton: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:47, 14 October 2014

Gerald Milton

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this BLP fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, a non-notable musician who has won non-notable awards. Stanleytux (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in the article are not notable. Versace1608 (Talk) 13:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously as an Artist with a University degree he is an Inspiration to the youths of his society -- Proftalk (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Proftalk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It's certainly overly promotional at present, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. it could be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view -- Chieffo (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Chieffo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy keep. I must commend, The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, but that does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the Boston Globe an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower.Justblaze54 (talk) 06:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) — Justblaze54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The comment above has been copied wholesale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Hunter and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this debate. JohnCD (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *'''Keep'''. It's certainly overly promotional at present, but I don't think it's ''unsalvageable''.  it could be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view  -- [[User:Chieffo|Chieffo]] ([[User talk:Chieffo|talk]]) 05:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Chieffo|Chieffo]] ([[User talk:Chieffo|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Chieffo|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
 *'''Speedy keep'''. I must commend, The article subject is notable and the article contains no inappropriate content. There haven been multiple accounts editing the article, but that does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand)"; allowing the page to remain, with whatever Cumberbatch-related material the banned editor included now expunged, is the most appropriate solution. Playing whack-a-mole with the banned editor has reached the disruptive level -- for example, yesterday a long-term, productive editor, who happens to live in the same metro area as Fairyspit and apparently has a slight editing overlap with them, was blocked as a sock, with scores of their image uploads deleted and many other edits undone, with the blocking admin for the moment unavailable to address the issue; Lady Lotus has removed content from this article declaring the ''Boston Globe'' an unreliable source; and, not for the first time, LL has mass-nominated for G5 contributions that clearly predate the ban. Sometimes a selective response is better than a flamethrower.[[User:Justblaze54|Justblaze54]] ([[User talk:Justblaze54|talk]]) 06:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC) <small>— [[User:Justblaze54|Justblaze54]] ([[User talk:Justblaze54|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Justblaze54|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single-purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. </small>
+:*The comment above has been copied wholesale from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophie Hunter]] and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of ''this'' debate. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 17:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)