Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Faqua


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Shawn Faqua

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Has had no significant roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions only minor parts. Has no "cult" following. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Theroadislong (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. He appears to be notable in Nigeria, which means he's notable. --Michig (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Comment Keep - if he has indeed received multiple nominations for major awards he would clearly have met notability criteria. But the current article is completely unacceptable (seemingly written by an excitable fan, or his agent) and I'd suggest it is moved back (again) to draft space to allow someone to re-write and source it. Sionk (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy enough with the improved citations to be convinced Faqua easily meets notability criteria, having received or been nominated for a number of major awards. Changed my !vote from 'Draftify' to 'Keep'. Sionk (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dratify for now The article isn't well sourced and looks promotional. I could not find reliable sources that profiles the subject's career but I think with the roles he has played, awards and nominations, the subject meets WP:ENT. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the the article "look promotional" or its "blatantly promotional"? WP:TNT applies only in cases of blatant promotion. Darreg (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all, I understand you concern. I only mistakenly started editing and improving the article and not the Draft. That is why. It is my first time writing and article on Wikipedia and I was still learning how to properly source the content. So please it should not be deleted. It just needs a simply clean-up with I am currently working on. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inehita (talk • contribs) 15:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject is clearly notable, I'm divided between !voting based on concern of the nominator (which were notability-based) or the state of the article (per WP:TNT). edit: Finally decided to !vote Keep. Darreg (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Dratify subject seems notable no doubt but i think the article is just poorly sourced. I suggest it should be moved back to draft for proper sourcing. MustaphaNG (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Given the award nominations, and the number of sources on the actor that already appear in the article (even if some of them aren't quite right), I'm appalled at the suggestion that this should be deleted. We talk about WP's Anglo-American bias being a problem, but how is it ever going to be rectified if articles like this are deleted? Furius (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2017 (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.