Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevan Shaw


 * 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   delete. The lack of independent sourcing in a subject like this is a serious issue, and none have been found in spite of attempts during the course of the debate. The secondary sourcing alluded to by Gigs has not materialized. Hence, the delete opinions get the nod on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!)  16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevan Shaw

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

Poorly sourced article about a lighting design consultant. Some passing references turn up in Google news searches, but no significant coverage. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Keep - Seems to be notable enough to have a good scattering of secondary source coverage. Should be trimmed down to WP:NPF standards though. Gigs (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  | Talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since I posted this article, I clearly think it is valid.  I have cut it right sown to its core as suggested by Gigs.Fiunary (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Much of the article is unsourced, and I can't find independent sources other than those that establish his existence. Sancho 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I went through the first few pages of google hits for "Kevan Shaw" and couldn't find anything that would qualify as significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Yilloslime T C  04:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BIO Secret account 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretalt (talk • contribs)


 * 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.