Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanuel Melles


 * 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) 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amanuel Melles

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Again, the sources exist, they are just not in the article, which is a reason to tag, not delete. Added some ELs.   P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first EL is to a BBC talking point debate which anyone can contribute to, so hardly indicative of notability. RMHED (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are multiple higher quality sources out there according to Google searches. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Week keep per my comments above. WP:RS coverage is out there, but heavily concentrated at The Globe and Mail. Non-trivial, but not a whole lot. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources do indeed exist. Just now I've added six references from the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail, all non-trivial mentions of Mr. Melles, even if not exclusive. It's enough for the general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Adequate sourcing from two newspapers--but I'm puzzled by an earlier comment--why is sourcing by the "Globe and Mail" not reliable on its own? DGG (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern was that the reliable coverage I found came overwhelmingly from one source. General notability comes from interest from multiple independent WP:RS. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont think that's even approximately true if the source is notable enough. (and a major national newspaper is exactly that sort of particularly notable source) DGG (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete don't see this meets WP:BIO.  Dloh  cierekim  03:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per the existence of multiple pieces of RS on the subject satisfying N. Celarnor Talk to me  15:23, 2 November 2008 (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.