Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler De Nawi

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. J04n(talk page) 15:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler De Nawi

Tyler De Nawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Looks as case of

• Delete I can't find any sources published before 2016, so TOOSOON can apply here. Also not seeing evidence of
  WP:ENT unfortunately. -NottNott|talk 09:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 17:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and basically terminated by BLPPROD too, nothing at all convincing of independent notability whatsoever. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- looking through news sources, it seems like he's had some coverage from significant outlets, Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and is relevant not just for one television show but is subject of broader debates about diversity in Australian media more generally. This draft is lacking for references (I'll try to add some later today) but I think the entry is notable Innisfree987 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC) Update - just added a section about his relevance to Australian media debates, and links for some of the biographical claims. Not all the details are verified yet but there's a lot more media coverage on him, and from significant Australian outlets, which could confirm more about his biography. It seems to me the best solutions are to add references or delete details that prove unverifiable, not to delete the entry, which I definitely think is notable. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject of the article appears to meet
  WP:BASIC; in addition to the sources already in the article, we have [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2016 (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.