Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Masterton

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 — anthony^[review] 02:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Masterton

Article originally submitted for Speedy deletion, apparently because of lack of verifiable sources and other concerns that, however, do not seem to fall under any criteria for SD. Further discussion at the article's talk page. - Phaedriel - 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would strongly encourage people to check out the talk page because this is a classic case of "I don't like it, so delete it!" Now, the AFD. The source for the article is his own brief autobiography. You can confirm most of its truth claims with a quick googling; He definitely wrote commentary on UseNet starting in 1992, he definitely writes for LaunchCast and dotmusic, and his content DID move to Yahoo. The remainder(ie his date of birth) are utterly uncontroversial. I'd also point out that his commentary is considered reliable enough to be cited in six different Wikipedia articles. Finally, I believe he passes notability: Many people really do care and talk about what he says. The BBC has quoted or cited him on on three occassions. Googling for "James masterton" music coughs up 22,800 hits, almost all of which have people actually talking about him and his commentary. Chris Croy 02:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is required to be reliable, independent, third-party sources; one's own autobiographical website doesn't count. Furthermore, the sources must not be a "trivial mention," but be about the subject. None of your BBC quotes are about Masterton. Pending some genuine sources talking about Masterton, rather than Masterton talking about someone or something else, Delete as failing WP:V, WP:BLP. RGTraynor 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regard RS as generally destructive nonsense. Apparently, people are reliable sources except when making uncontroversial statements about themselves. Again, every truth claim made in his autobiography, with the exception of his year of birth, can be verified by anyone with an Internet connection and a couple spare seconds. He has been writing chart commentary since 1992, he does write chart commentary for yahoo, and the content was acquired by Yahoo. Finally, if a 'reliable source' discussed him, you know what their source would be for all of the above facts and others? Him. Journalists don't follow up on claims made by subjects unless they have some reason to believe the subject is screwing with them.Chris Croy 01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if no journalist, anywhere, wants to say anything about a subject, that tends to suggest the subject isn't notable. In any event, neither your opinion nor mine budges the requirements of WP:V a single jot. RGTraynor 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's as non-notable as the sites he used to work for. Triangle e 09:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's influential, respected and relevant. Bentley Banana 13:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He writes for a high profile website, has done for over a decade, appears on TV, is quoted by the BBC on matters relating to music and appears to be one of the most widely debated writers on the web. What a strange debate. 217.28.34.132 10:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the basic notability seems clear--the only question is whether it sis sourced, and the BBC is quite adequate for that. We usually accept autobio or web page statements for uncontroversial details.DGG 07:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If his notability isn't an issue, I can verify everything in his entry, including his date of birth, as I have known him for 15 years. Lfbarfe 19:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - marginally notable figure. Metamagician3000 10:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.