Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Gay South Africa™

: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. v/r - TP 03:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

=[[Mr Gay South Africa™]]=

:{{la|Mr Gay South Africa™}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Mr Gay South Africa™}})

Fails WP:GNG,Strange article with no reliable sources;Link goes to the company's website;and another leading to facebook page.Should be deleted. That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 10:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC) 2 December - reliable sourced added and bias removed.

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All the objectios have been sorted out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudirainbow (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep: New sources show notability. SL93 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. If this is kept then the trademark symbol needs to be removed from the title. I wish nominators would perform such obvious moves before starting deletion discussions, because moving during the discussion can mess up the links. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep, covered in multiple different secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Has sufficient references available. A concur with Phil's comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep - it now looks good per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep given the multiple independent sources now provided. Agree with Phil re necessary renaming; once this AfD has run its course I would suggest that the original name should be nominated at WP:RfD. - htonl (talk) 02:14, 14 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.