Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Francis
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 per the snowball clause. –MuZemike 00:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Francis[edit]
Joe Francis' article should be deleted due to general inaccuracies and misleading bias articles that are slanderous and defamatory. Joe Francis' life should not be defined by legal accusations and alleged events where lawsuits are threatened but charges are dropped or dismissed or never even brought forward. Please consider this deletion. Thank you Mantrafilms (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC) — Mantrafilms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Speedy Keep, deliberate disruption by corporate role account trying to sanitize article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy DeletionOf course the article should be "sanitized" who wants an unsanitary article? Unsanitary implies that the article is incorrect, false and misleading. This page should be deleted.AEB1275 (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC) — AEB1275 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Speedy Keep bad nom by possible corporate role account. Joe Francis is notable. editing can fix inaccuracies, and poor weighting. editing can remove incorrect, false and misleading info. If coverage in independent reliable sources focus on legal issues then so should the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ugh, it's not a great article. It seems to have problems with WP:UNDUE. And the flow is off, somehow. But the subject is certainly notable. As stated, above, editing is how we fix these problems, not deletion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is notable as the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" series. Beyond that we're talking about fixable problems with the article. Tabercil (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs work, certainly, but this highly infamous subject is certainly noteworthy. I'm certain that there is a near infinitude of writing, both in print and online, devoted to this individual. Evalpor (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and send to cleanup. I note that the nominator was indef-blocked per problematic username, and have concerns that the sole "speedy delete" !vote was from a single purpose account who began editing on May 10, 2010 and has shown interest in only this article.diff I am hoping this is not a re-vote by the single purpose nominator. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly a notable person, issues raised by nominator can be solved without deletion. EuroPride (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per pretty much all of the above. His life is full of controversies, and that's what the article talks about. Dismas|(talk) 05:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No valid reason presented for nomination. Easily passes WP:GNG.Horrorshowj (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2010 (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.