Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jess Thomas
Jess Thomas was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.
Tagged for Speedy deletion, not a CSD. Moving deletion nomination to VfD instead. No vote. SWAdair | Talk 10:38, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme keep. Yet another unqualified candidate for deletion. Jess Thomas appears to have been a highly notable musician in his field (classical). [1] 6000 Google hits as well, FWIW. [2] This needed a simple stub tag, not a deletion tag. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:52, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- As with the previous Phantom of the Opera entry, Clean up and send to RFE. This is not a stub. This is a substub that tells you nothing at all. If things stay like this, it should be deleted, but the figure is notable. Geogre 16:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but could you please explain why a stub (or a "substub") on a strongly notable person should be deleted? —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:02, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- First, a substub should be deleted. A stub can stay. A substub says "Renee Magrite is a painter." Anyone using us as a reference (an encyclopedia) figures we're worth nothing and no longer uses us. The contributor has actually contributed nothing. Anyone at all who wanted to create an article on Magrite would put in more information, so the only reason to keep is to honor someone so lazy or ignorant as to have managed only a single predicate nominative. Saying "it could grow" in that case is ridiculous, because anyone at all who created the article would exceed it instantly. Where a stub should grow is when what is in the stub is something that wouldn't be known by every single person who could create an article. So, if it all it is is "a tenor," then this is a fact and not an article. It's a substub and should be deleted, not a stub that should be expanded. Geogre 21:39, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme Keep This was never even close to an appropriate candidate for deletion. It was also a legitimate stub. It took me two minutes to expand it (and more could be done). Wyss 23:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I can't find any policy supporting the deletion of stubs that are readily expandable. Please don't list articles for deletion without giving reasons.Dr Zen 01:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. However, I've taken a look at the first version and I would have agreed with deletion of that. I agree with Geogre: if a subject is worth inclusion it's always worth something more than a substub; substubs are expendable no matter how worthy their subjects might be. If somebody lacks the energy or information to write more than a substub, he or she should direct that little energy elsewhere. -- Hoary 03:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added more to the article and added Wiki Links. Capitalistroadster 09:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.