Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesan Pather


 * 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. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  05:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nesan Pather

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. ninety:one  14:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Pather's work as a musician and author appear to be covered by independent sources within South Africa. While I agree that Pather is not notable as an author, musician, or actor alone, each of these "hats" he wears has been covered in some detail from sources already in the article, and I think that is enough to suffice WP:GNG.  However, assertions that his prominence is "international" as either is not really supported by the current sources, which appear to limit his notability to South Africa. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 07:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The subject appears to be an energetic jack of all trades. However the article has a worrying reliance on media with user-generated content for its references. The 3 most substantial references ( and the paywalled & ) are rather typical local entertainments pieces; from what can be seen this side of the paywall, they are not providing the evidence of notability. Unless more tangible evidence than assertion of viral video and radio play in Europe can be provided, I'd say delete. AllyD (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)




 * Weak Delete - My own searches turned up the same stuff as AllyD. It's borderline, but on the delete side of the borderline for me. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 28 July 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.