Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Kelly Legal history and image


 * 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   delete. j⚛e deckertalk 03:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

R. Kelly Legal history and image

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't really see why this would require or warrant an independent article in its own right. Page was recently speedy deleted under WP:A10. Seems to be a (POV?) content fork by a couple of editors engaged in some sort of dispute and I also posit the intent is censorship of certain material from the main R. Kelly article. Aside from that, the method in which it was forked may create copyright issues as there is no attribution to original authors of content. -- dsprc   [talk]  07:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think such an article could be created, but this might not be the one we want. For one, there is no such thing as an "Illegal marriage" - it's either void, valid, or voidable. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Delete - agree with Bearian and so believe this is both beyond saving and not worth saving. Yes, I suppose we could have an article about this subject but I can't see why we should. The content is a BLP nightmare with unsourced speculation and wishy-washy comments being treated as "proof of fact". BLP still applies here people.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:06, 26 September 2014 (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.