Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chan Poling

: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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Chan Poling]]=

:{{la|Chan Poling}} ([{{fullurl:Chan Poling|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chan Poling}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

One third party source but not enough for WP:N it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

:Delete; subject (User:Chanpol) wrote it, in his sole edit three years ago, and it doesn't appear to have been substantively improved since then. --Golbez (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Further sources are available [http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/05/11/poling_venus/], [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E1DD103FF933A05757C0A9609C8B63], [http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/othercities/twincities/stories/2009/02/23/story4.html], [http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?op=Print&sid=158] etc. Clearly enough to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements. Quantpole (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The NYT reference convinced me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Article needs work but subject notable enough - [http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:k9fwxqrgld6e~T1 Emmy award winner]. Lame Name (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pardon me, fellows, but if these references are so great, perhaps one of you would like to put it in the article? After seeing three keeps in a row mentioning a half dozen valid references, I went back and ... the article remains completely unchanged, and thus my vote remains a delete. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is articles for deletion, and not cleanup. The discussion is to determine if the article should be kept. Sourcing is established in this disussion, and as such I would say keep. Improving the article can happen during or after the AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This discussion is not valid sourcing for an article. The article must be seen on its own, and as it is, it fails the criteria for inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:::This is not a vote. This is a sounding of the general consensus amongst editors. Maybe, just maybe, people are at work, or enjoying [http://duncanmoran.me.uk/index.php/the-other-stuff/the-view-from-here/ a sunny afternoon], or waiting to see what the general consensus is, and have not the time or inclination to rewrite an article, which, a couple of minutes with Google reveals, has obviously erroneously been proposed for deletion, right now but will get back to it as soon as possible. Lame Name (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but have you even read WP:DEL#REASON or WP:BEFORE? We don't delete articles because they aren't currently good enough, we delete them because they can't become good enough (with some exceptions like copyvios).
  • "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" So we are allowed to keep a BLP with entirely inadequate sourcing so long as AFD has found sources? All I ask is that sources be placed in a BLP. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • But that doesn't say anything about putting those sources in the article itself. It's not up to those voting keep to make the article better, that's the general job of all editors. All we do is assess whether it meets wikipedia's requirements, which this blatantly does. If the sources are there to verify an article it is totally against the deletion process to delete. Quantpole (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chan_Poling&diff=294856988&oldid=294191125 added] Quantpole's references into the article. One of them was apparently already there, and the last one probably belongs in The Suburbs article. "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" hardly applies here since the reliable sources have already been presented. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily meets WP:MUSICBIO as an Emmy winner and, as Quantpole pointed out, covered in several reliable sources independent from the subject. Jafeluv (talk) 22:02, 6 June 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.