Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Drysdale


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-11 03:30Z 

Darren Drysdale

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged as WP:CSD but notability is asserted. Sort of. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:BIO in my opinion. Note that I referenced and slightly expanded the article before forming that opinion. Plenty of potential for further verifiable expansion from reliable sources. CiaranG 22:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - definitely seems notable to me, but the mentions could be more non-trivial in the given refs. Let's try to find more mentions in news.  delldot | talk 03:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep A referee with a mention in a news story regarding an incident... mmh. Still, CiaranG has done a good job with the sourcing so far, and if he thinks he can further expand it, I trust that enough to keep it for now and see. Shimeru 21:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I said there was potential, i.e. there's plenty of further information available that can be verified from reliable sources. I didn't say I had the inclination to do it, so please don't say keep just on my account. CiaranG 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. That's a pity.  Sources're still good, though, so I don't see a need to change my !vote.  It's a borderline case for BIO, but it's better-sourced than many questionable articles; I'm inclined to let it be. Shimeru 07:15, 10 February 2007 (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.