Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Gulzar


 * 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 Redirected to Melanie Brown. NawlinWiki 12:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Gulzar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-encyclopedic chap - was previously a redirect to Mel B, which I believe is no longer worth it Petesmiles 08:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC) *Redirect Keep Canley has done fine work in updating /- unless someone can be bothered to add > 1 line about him Kernel Saunters 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on your reasoning? Just brushing it off as "unencyclopedic" tells us nothing. Morgan Wick 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing s/he is referring to the fact that this man is famous for absolutely nothing other than having been briefly married to one of the Spice Girls....... ChrisTheDude 09:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that's exactly right, Chris - thanks.... Petesmiles 22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I've expanded the article considerably. I understand and agree that he's only famous for being married to a Spice Girl, but whatever the reason, he is notable now - the subject of a BBC documentary and a load of articles on his various assault charges! --Canley 15:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: per Canley. That he only entered the public eye through his wife is obvious, but plainly there are many news articles about his doings, most well after his divorce.  That's a pass on WP:V.    RGTraynor  16:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete:. Nothing worth keeping, only famous for 1 thing and that is the marriage. Metallicash 18:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Violation of WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, no. As I stated in my reversion of your removal of almost all the article's content, WP:BLP calls for the removal of poorly sourced or completely unsourced contentious material, and specifies that sources used must be of high quality.  Each and every one of the sourced statements you removed were from the BBC or CNN.  You cannot claim that those sources are suspect.    RGTraynor  04:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are no blp issues as far as I can see Kernel Saunters 09:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:BLP. There's more to WP:BLP than sources alone. For one thing, this article violates NPOV as it is not a neutral, balanced biography. WP:BLP amplifies the problem by its requirement that policies should be strictly observed in BLPs. This is not a biography and unlikely to become one due to the unbiographic nature of the available sources. As such, it will always have serious WP:WEIGHT/WP:SYN/notability problems. Unless the guy becomes "notable" as in "encyclopedic" some day; if that happens, I'm sure we will see sufficient sources to write his biography. Avb &divide; talk  09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I've removed the BLP violations. Please do not revert without a consensus to do so (i.e. Keep). Avb &divide; talk  10:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but why did you remove the BBC press release about the documentary? That doesn't violate WP:BLP, surely. I hope you didn't just delete everything except the first line. --Canley 11:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not as a source, no; like most of what I wiped, this item is verifiable. Ideally the article should be deleted and/or redirected straight away; I only left a neutral stub for the duration of the AfD. The problem is that we need more diverse information for a bio. Perhaps it helps if you ask yourself what you would want your own bio to look like. To me this is in the spirit of WP:BLP; but its letter is also informative. See e.g. here. Also note that a redirect can be done keeping the history intact, so that it would be easier to retrieve if the article can be revived at some point in the future if we have enough information to write a true biography. Avb &divide;  talk  13:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanation. --Canley 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The marriage is covered adequately in Melanie Brown and the Gulzar article seems to have been used, recently, as a coatrack for all kinds of silly tabloid stories.  We obviously don't want to encourage people who come here to abuse Wikipedia in this way. --Tony Sidaway 10:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment That's a bit harsh, isn't it? I was the one who expanded the article, and believe me I have no opinion of Mr Gulzar one way or the other. I certainly had no intention to be mean to him, to "abuse Wikipedia", or to use the article as a "coat-rack" for POV opinions. I'm a strong supporter of WP:BLP policies, but in my opinion this is going a bit far. I guess that's the perils of using the media as a source, even "silly tabloids" like the BBC are more likely to report negative stories such as criminal activities, foolish statements and accusations. I made considerable effort to keep the article neutral but if this comes down to a notability issue then so be it. --Canley 11:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * just to clarify - I didn't want to cast aspersions on you at all - and apologies if it came across that way. You'd probably agree though that the article had a negative tone (which yes, reflects the sources) - and I see that as a) conflicting with trying to be neutral and b) not very nice / mean! - thanks, Petesmiles 11:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought the "Jimmy Goldcard" reference, which was exceptionally poorly sourced and seemed quite gratuitous, was the worst thing about the article. The rest is for the most part just celebrity gossip. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree... I didn't add that by the way! --Canley 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I am no sure it even rates as trivia. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not transferred by association. EyeSereneTALK 10:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.