Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Lane (journalist)

:{{la|Tim Lane (journalist)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Lane (journalist)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Tim Lane (journalist)}})

Broken source links, 1 editorial mention, google reveals nothing substantial DavidBetzer (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

:Oppose. Has commentated on AFL Grand Finals for Network Ten, international cricket for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and BBC. Tim Lane + AFL gives 35000 google hits. Surely "substantial" enough? Jevansen (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

:*This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. Tassedethe (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – basically per Jevansen. Notable and surely passes WP:GNG, which is what I think this AfD was based on. Jenks24 (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - can't see the rational at all behind this nomination, I'm struggling to WP:AGF and not wonder if there is another agenda here, especially as the nominator has not edited any other Australia or sporting related article. If you search for "Tim Lane (journalist)" (with the quotations forcing an exact text match) you find not much. "Tim Lane" Commentator or any other variation finds heaps. He's probably one of the ten best known and most respected sporting commentators in Australia.The-Pope (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Possibly the best known sporting commentator in Australia. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is not a reason for deletion. If editors are going to use Google hits as an argument for deletion, they could at least use Google properly. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - same arguments as the Pope and Mattinbgn, and a further comment that Google hits have little use for many Australian subjects - a closer (if it is historical in context) method is http://trove.nla.gov.au SatuSuro 10:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
• Keep and trout the nominator. Plenty of quality material that is trivial to find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 13 September 2010 (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.