Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rue Protzer

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. The deletion guidelines for administrators requires me to consider WP:BLP in addition to the discussion. On review, it seems that noone beyond the nominator can identify any contentious material in this article. The article needs citations, however, and this should be done soon - it is unfortunate that this discussion has not raised the issue of finding sources to establish notability and I hope that contributors will make some effort to do so soon, otherwise this should probably come back to AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Protzer

Only a primary source offered, no further references. WP:BLP problems, notability problems, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Mikeblas (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and beef up. Ventifax (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the other issues might exist, I was unable to find any BLP issues. Not all biographies of living people are deletable. They can only be speedy deleted if it mainly contains negative or contentious information about the subject which is not in question here. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:BLP: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The whole of the article is unreferenced; if I remove the material that's not referenced, I'm left with something less than a stub. As such, deleting the whole article is the right thing to do per Wikipedia policy. If the article manages to pass AfD, I'll remove the unreferenced material, and leave it as a stub. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The quote that you give from WP:BLP doesn't say "unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons...should be removed immediately", but "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately" (my emphasis). You seem to have ignored the all-important word in your interpretation of policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what part is contentious Chzz ► 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There is this one small bit. There may be more German sources, but I'm not compentent to do that. I will also note that the article has never been tagged as needing references. As for the BLP issues, I see none. There are no negative comments. There is no promotional language. The tone is quite neutral. I don't see how cutting the article down to a stub would be helpful. If there are specific statements that you feel are contentious, you can always tag them with {{cn}} to request a citation to verify the assertion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. {{unreferenced}} is not a requisite to deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - It isn't, but not giving an article a chance for development through collaborative editting is contrary to spirit of Wikipedia. Deletion is a last resort. -- Whpq (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2009 (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.