Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Young (comedian)


 * 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)  SparksBoy (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

James Young (comedian)

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for entertainers, no reliable sources to make a good article, and the article would require a fundamental rewrite in order to conform to basic style and content guidelines, etc.  Fl ee tf la me   20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. The article is almost completely unreferenced, however, the subject is notable for Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, but again, a rewrite would be necessary. But notabilty shouldn't be a problem. For example, BBC Northern Ireland produced a documentary on his 1970s television series (and an hour-long tribute show) last year. It's more a case of digging up more reliable sources and dealing with the less than neutral point-of-view issues, although in fairness, they are more a result of enthusiasm for the subject than anything else. FlowerpotmaN &middot;( t ) 22:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, notability would be clear with better sourcing. I started the article, but it has changed substantially since I last edited it. Whoever has expanded the article has done so in good faith, but it's an unencyclopedic mess at the minute. Unfortunately my time on Wikipedia is limited these days, or I would improve the article myself. A revert to a much earlier version of the article may be the best course - it would be a lot easier to reference.  Stu   ’Bout ye!  11:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - See obituary which don't get handed out for non-notable people. The current article is an absolute mess.  A revert to an earlier version would be better than trying to straighten out the current mess of quotes and anecdotes. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (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.