Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Corner (2nd nomination)
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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Corner[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Chris Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Still "no reliable, third-party sources can be found [...] Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - wp:v -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t16:16z
- Redirect to IAMX CTJF83 chat 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. This article was kept at AfD one month ago after a nomination by the same editor. The editor blanked the entire page except for a single sentence and then renominated the article for deletion. As noted in the previous AfD, the article does not run afoul of WP:V, and at bare minimum, a redirect to IAMX is inappropriate since Corner was also a member of the notable Sneaker Pimps. Chubbles (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:v states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed", and because no reliable sources were provided before, during, or after the previous AfD by any of the keep voters or the admin that decided to keep the article, I removed the unsourced material. wp:v also states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and since there are no reliable, third-party sources, I'm nominating the article for deletion until a closing admin actually looks at the article instead of counting baseless keep votes. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-10t18:57z
- You are challenging a large body of information that is not remotely controversial, apparently to make a WP:POINT about verifiability. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:V support the mass removal of uncontentious information (such as, for instance, the fact that Corner was a member of Sneaker Pimps). Despite an AfD which noted that the article in no way fails WP:V, you made no effort to improve the article using the available sources, deleted virtually its entirety (leaving a single, unsourced, sentence), and then nominated it again - hoping that editors would be more likely to delete an article with no content than an article which, though unsourced, plainly asserted notability. Unverified is not unverifiable and is not a valid rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references" - wp:v. I first challenged this unsourced article on 2009-09-16, asking for sources. No inline sources were provided, so 2 weeks later I proposed deletion. Two hours later the prod was removed without an edit summary, without supplying any inline sources, and without even saying on the talk page why wp:v should be ignored in this case. On 2009-10-04 I nominated the article for deletion because "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - wp:v. The article was kept despite no inline sources being provided - the closing admin probably just counted votes instead of reading wp:v or the quote from it. On 2009-11-08 I removed the long challenged unsourced material, and again nominated it for deletion. Is 53 days (now 57) not "enough time to provide references"? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-12t12:25z
- This here establishes that Corner was involved both with Sneaker Pimps and IAMX per WP:MUSIC, and here and here are some interviews...That ought to get you started. Enjoy editing! Chubbles (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm much more in line with "View two" of WP:TIND and don't consider sourcing issues a valid reason to delete uncontroversial articles if the articles assert notability and there is indication that the information is valid. (ie: near-reliable sources, appropriate websites, etc.) That's what the cite tag is for. - BalthCat (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references" - wp:v. I first challenged this unsourced article on 2009-09-16, asking for sources. No inline sources were provided, so 2 weeks later I proposed deletion. Two hours later the prod was removed without an edit summary, without supplying any inline sources, and without even saying on the talk page why wp:v should be ignored in this case. On 2009-10-04 I nominated the article for deletion because "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - wp:v. The article was kept despite no inline sources being provided - the closing admin probably just counted votes instead of reading wp:v or the quote from it. On 2009-11-08 I removed the long challenged unsourced material, and again nominated it for deletion. Is 53 days (now 57) not "enough time to provide references"? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-12t12:25z
- You are challenging a large body of information that is not remotely controversial, apparently to make a WP:POINT about verifiability. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:V support the mass removal of uncontentious information (such as, for instance, the fact that Corner was a member of Sneaker Pimps). Despite an AfD which noted that the article in no way fails WP:V, you made no effort to improve the article using the available sources, deleted virtually its entirety (leaving a single, unsourced, sentence), and then nominated it again - hoping that editors would be more likely to delete an article with no content than an article which, though unsourced, plainly asserted notability. Unverified is not unverifiable and is not a valid rationale for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- wp:v states that "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed", and because no reliable sources were provided before, during, or after the previous AfD by any of the keep voters or the admin that decided to keep the article, I removed the unsourced material. wp:v also states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and since there are no reliable, third-party sources, I'm nominating the article for deletion until a closing admin actually looks at the article instead of counting baseless keep votes. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-10t18:57z
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pretty much any reasonable search would seem to indicate that he passes the relevant notability guideline. Deletion isn't for cleanup Bfigura (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He passes criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO "musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles"; Sneaker Pimps and IAMX. J04n(talk page) 03:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's undoubtedly notable if you follow the guidelines. --Beao 10:44, 16 November 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.