Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rory Blackwell


 * 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. SNOW... Tone 21:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Rory Blackwell
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I dont feel safe regarding this article about me, too many changes are being made and my privacy is being invaded. Many thanks, Rory Ser33 (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — J04n(talk page) 06:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: . You pass WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely passes WP:MUSICBIO as well; however, more reliable sources are needed. Subject's concerns valid - recommend that Rory reads WP:BIOSELF for more information. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - definitely passes. This article may have been written as an autobiography, but sooner or later someone else would have written it. He was a significant figure in the British rock 'n' roll scene. I've added some more sources as well and copy-edited. Agree the subject's concerns are valid, although there are no problems at the moment in the article, and the source articles added are fine in terms of their tone and contents, quite complimentary. Voceditenore (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The person who is the subject is notable. I think this was nominated because the subject/nominator is dissatisfied with his inability to control the content. I would be interested in knowing what specifically Rory finds objectionable. The part he deleted doesn't seem to contain any material that would invade privacy or violate WP:BLP. –  j ak s mata  15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Definitely notable. Article badly needs copy editing though. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject is clearly notable.  Nominator's basis boils down to a claim of a violation of WP:Avoiding harm.  But I see nothing in the article that approaches that, and if there were, the appropriate response would be to correct the article, not to delete it.  The subject's dissatisfaction with his inability to control the article content is not a ground for deletion. TJRC (talk) 18:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Snow Keep. Notable.  Also the nominator isn't the subject, but represents the subject (see his talk page).   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:23, 6 November 2009 (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.