Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan King

Nathan King

Nathan King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person of questionable notability, 2 references that aren't strong either. — Geelongnative (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 09:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: The nominator was identified and blocked as a sock of User:Jackjit.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

*Delete: References appear to be too "local".DrakeNZer (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

*Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Vote changed, see below. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Delete One of the two references is a primary source and the other one gives little information to support the whole of the article.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator and User:DrakeNZer are socks, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jackjit. mabdul 21:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: I found a muzic.net.nz review, he won the 2001 NZ Music Award, an interview with him, he was aired at Westdeutscher Rundfunk . More will likely follow. mabdul 22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He is multiple times in the APRA Top 100 New Zealand Songs Of All Time with Zed, Zed reunined(not that good ref), he was even in the Austrian charts fro two weeks, some news on amplifier.co.nz mabdul 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this AfD should deserve a procedural keep as the nom is an identified and blocked sockpuppet and he tried (successfully) to address the current discussion voting with one another of his sock accounts. However, the subject passes WP:GNG as has some not-local-news coverage (as New Zealand Herald), and also not considering the sources, he easily passes WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 2 (as he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart), criteria 8 and criteria 11. He also passes WP:ANYBIO criteria 1.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep There weren't references, and now there are. Changed vote, see above Stuartyeates (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Stuartyeats. Bad case of groupthink. --Legis (talk - contribs) 02:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment -- Congratulations to User:Cavarrone for expanding this article. None of us are obliged to make this kind of expansion to an article before {{afd}}. But I am afraid admonitions are in order for all the contributors who left early "delete" opinions. While we aren't obliged to fix articles before {{afd}}, I think we are obliged to make sure we only leave informed opinions. Each of us should have done our own web search, prior to leaving an opinion. If those who left "delete" opinions had spent 30 seconds doing that web search they would have found what Cavaronne found -- that there were sufficient good references. Geo Swan (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep A topic that merits coverage, due to WP:RS. Also, procedural keep due to sockpuppetry and deceit. Geo Swan (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2011 (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.