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. Clear failure of
WP:BEFORE, and the nominator does not make an argument for deletion that is based in the deletion policy. (And this is the third time I've been able to cut-and-paste this rationale for nominations by the same nominator, too.)
The BushrangerOne ping only 11:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is poorly sourced. A lot of information on it was unsourced claims clearly written by a fan and after deleting it they constantly brought it back. This article was clearly created by a publicity company to increase web presence of the person. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zacleaner (
talk •
contribs) 27 November 2015
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There's nothing wrong with the sourcing,
The Sowetan is a mainstream nationally distributed newspaper.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 11:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - literally thousands of hits on News, these are the first 3 on the first page:
this,
this (although light on depth), and
this. Plus
this,
this and
this. I always attempt to AGF, but 10 seconds of
WP:BEFORE would have shown this person as notable.
Onel5969TT me 13:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
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.