Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Niccol


 * 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 Speedy Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion, plenty of keep votes. (non-admin closure) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Niccol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This BLP has no references that do not have link rot. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lets be clear here....your asking for deletion because the links are dead not because hes not notable right? Perhaps a tag indicating sources are needed over deletion would be best no? -- Moxy (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * strong keep I added three sources in a few minutes google searchign and editing. Pleaase don't make AfD nominations without going through WP:BEFORE. This is what WP:BLPPROD is for. I urge a speedy close, and a swift trout to the nominator. DES (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and trout per above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment - Was created before the 2010 requirement that all BLPs have at least one reference. I have no opinion either way, really, except that references not being in the article is not the same as them not existing. Just felt the need to state the ref thing. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject won many film awards showing notability. ///Euro Car  GT  03:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Notability is not remotely in question here, with a subject who has been nominated for an  Oscar and has won a BAFTA and a number of other awards.  And linkrot is not a basis for deletion, see WP:LINKROT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Agree with nominator at time of nomination. At that point, the article failed WP:V particularly given that the article had been tagged as needing cites to meet WP:V for over two years.  Frankly, more articles failing WP:V need to be AfDed if that is the only way to force the cites being added. Now that the cites have been added, it passes both WP:V and WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - per reasons above. And requesting that an admin please close this AfD. IjonTichy (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2014 (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.