Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaan Hadchiti


 * 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) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Imaan Hadchiti

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. nothing in gnews and only 2 small mentions in major Australian search engine trove. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep (article creator) - When searching gnews, remember to click "Archives" if you want to search all articles rather than just recent ones. There's this 7:30 Report segment from 2005 which I forgot to cite in the article initially. He won a national youth comedy competition at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival in 2005. Hadchiti receives significant coverage in the reference above from the ABC, satisfying WP:N.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * winning the "national youth comedy competition at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival " does not satisfy WP:CREATIVE. this does not get significant coverage in ABC, just 2 hits . LibStar (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * At the risk of WP:DTTR, the GNG trumps WP:CREATIVE.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the archives search comes up with 1 hit. hardly evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the refs in the article are just sufficient to meet the WP:GNG or WP:ENT -he has had multiple stage performances at major festivals (note that counter-intuitively WP:CREATIVE isn't actually meant for commedians), and I'd like to point out to the nominator that Trove isn't very useful for modern day searches - it only has very limited current information - it is most useful for it's digitised newspaper archive, which stops in the 1950s. The-Pope (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * then google news should pick up recent coverage, and there is no evidence of significant indepth coverage for this person. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant career, no significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment to satisfy WP:GNG, one has to consider the quality of the sources. obviously ABC is a reliable source. but dbmagazine although an independent publication seems rather small, especially when there are ads for band members to contact a gmail address on the side banner. femail.com.au is not a mainstream source either. it reviews events. but looks like an advertising website to me http://www.femail.com.au/index.htm. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my opinion the 7.30 Report ref almost gets him over the GNG line by itself. Agree that the other sources currently in the article aren't mainstream, but I've found a few more sources that I think guarantee Hadchiti meets GNG.
 * I'd link to all these if I could, but I accessed them using NewsBank, so a subscription is required. Although the last three refs are in regional papers, they do add to the notability, add I think Hadchit meets GNG when you take the 7.30 Report and Herald Sun references into account. Jenks24 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements and sourcing. Thanks Jenks24. It's just over the edge per WP:GNG, and notable to Australia is fine for en.Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 7:30 Report is sufficiently independent, and other sources appear to confirm notability. Orderinchaos 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - in view of comments from Jenks and Orderinchaos - also Trove is not a major search engine, as such but a national library database that utilises library resources at a particular date in time - and due its constant development cannot be thought of as a final piece of evidence of notability of anything in the Australian context - there are many people who wouldnt get a hit on trove who are notable and well sourced from other information sources SatuSuro 07:28, 22 August 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.
 * Keep per improvements and sourcing. Thanks Jenks24. It's just over the edge per WP:GNG, and notable to Australia is fine for en.Wikipedia.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 7:30 Report is sufficiently independent, and other sources appear to confirm notability. Orderinchaos 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - in view of comments from Jenks and Orderinchaos - also Trove is not a major search engine, as such but a national library database that utilises library resources at a particular date in time - and due its constant development cannot be thought of as a final piece of evidence of notability of anything in the Australian context - there are many people who wouldnt get a hit on trove who are notable and well sourced from other information sources SatuSuro 07:28, 22 August 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.