239:: "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 Knowledge (XXG) policy. If the article manages to pass AfD, I'll remove the unreferenced material, and leave it as a stub. --
318:. 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
56:
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
219:
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. -
157:
201:
130:
372:- It isn't, but not giving an article a chance for development through collaborative editting is contrary to spirit of Knowledge (XXG). Deletion is a last resort. --
264:
material about living persons...should be removed immediately" (my emphasis). You seem to have ignored the all-important word in your interpretation of policy.
260:
doesn't say "unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons...should be removed immediately", but "unsourced or poorly sourced
57:
establish notability and I hope that contributors will make some effort to do so soon, otherwise this should probably come back to AfD
17:
97:
92:
101:
84:
400:
137:
Only a primary source offered, no further references. WP:BLP problems, notability problems, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.
36:
169:
399:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
225:
269:
349:
381:
364:
337:
304:
273:
248:
227:
213:
191:
173:
146:
66:
209:
165:
62:
360:
244:
221:
187:
142:
265:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
49:
88:
315:
257:
236:
53:
205:
377:
333:
297:
58:
356:
240:
183:
138:
118:
322:
80:
72:
373:
329:
290:
393:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
158:
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions
125:
114:
110:
106:
328:to request a citation to verify the assertion. --
202:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
403:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
152:
156:: This debate has been included in the
200:: This debate has been included in the
50:deletion guidelines for administrators
287:I don't see what part is contentious
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
355:is not a requisite to deletion. --
24:
256:. The quote that you give from
1:
420:
67:10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
382:12:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
365:05:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
338:18:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
305:16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
274:22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
249:15:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
228:11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
214:00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
192:23:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
174:15:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
147:15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
396:Please do not modify it.
52:requires me to consider
32:Please do not modify it.
314:- There is this one
44:The result was
303:
216:
176:
161:
411:
398:
354:
348:
327:
321:
302:
300:
294:
288:
196:
162:
128:
122:
104:
34:
419:
418:
414:
413:
412:
410:
409:
408:
407:
401:deletion review
394:
352:
346:
325:
319:
298:
292:
289:
235:. According to
166:LinguistAtLarge
124:
95:
79:
76:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
417:
415:
406:
405:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
308:
307:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
217:
194:
177:
135:
134:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
416:
404:
402:
397:
391:
390:
383:
379:
375:
371:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
351:
344:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
324:
317:
313:
310:
309:
306:
301:
296:
295:
286:
283:
282:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
231:
230:
229:
226:
223:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
193:
189:
185:
182:and beef up.
181:
178:
175:
172:
171:
167:
159:
155:
151:
150:
149:
148:
144:
140:
132:
127:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
395:
392:
369:
350:unreferenced
342:
311:
291:
284:
266:Phil Bridger
261:
253:
232:
197:
179:
164:
153:
136:
45:
43:
31:
28:
262:contentious
81:Rue Protzer
73:Rue Protzer
206:Erwin85Bot
316:small bit
312:Weak Keep
59:Fritzpoll
357:Mikeblas
241:Mikeblas
184:Ventifax
139:Mikeblas
131:View log
343:Comment
254:Comment
233:Comment
98:protect
93:history
258:WP:BLP
237:WP:BLP
126:delete
102:delete
54:WP:BLP
48:. The
370:Reply
293:Chzz
129:) – (
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
378:talk
374:Whpq
361:talk
334:talk
330:Whpq
285:Keep
270:talk
245:talk
210:talk
204:. --
198:Note
188:talk
180:Keep
170:Talk
163:-- —
154:Note
143:talk
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
63:talk
46:keep
222:Mgm
380:)
363:)
353:}}
347:{{
345:.
336:)
326:}}
323:cn
320:{{
299:â–ş
272:)
247:)
212:)
190:)
168:•
160:.
145:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
65:)
376:(
359:(
332:(
268:(
243:(
224:|
208:(
186:(
141:(
133:)
123:(
121:)
83:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.