Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shina Rambo


 * 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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shina Rambo

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article lacked objectivity and was biased in favor of the person before I modified it*Lack of reputable sources available for article*Article is on subject not significant enough for Wikipedia Egret Of Regret (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Appear to be several potential sources via a Google search. Definitely agree with removing the interview that was previously there, as that seemed like blatant WP:COPYVIO material, but would support keeping, stubifying, and such. Suspect that given the nature of the subject, sourcing from unquestionably reliable sources may be somewhat difficult, but I tend to extend a bit more flexibility in cases such as this (where traditionally reliable sourcing might be more difficult to find not because of lack of notability but because of lack of a stable media in the region at issue). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  16:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It looks like he has received more coverage than a run-of-the-mill thief, . There may be more paywalled coverage on Google News too. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * keep per Ginsengbomb. Has enough sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * keep We aren't running out of bits and you deletionists are nuts. If the article lacks objectivity, fix it.--stufff (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - per sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The discussion was apparently about ], not about the present minute stub left before COPY-VIO material was removed. The problem with the article is that after the deletion of that virtally nothing is left.  Can some one create a reasonable text by summarising the content of the externally-lined source?  In that way there will be something whose merits can be discussed; at present there is none.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant, but COPYVIO material was not present in the article when this discussion began. It was in its current stub state when the AfD commenced, per nominator's comments and my own. Definitely agree that the article needs to be improved, but that's not a relevant consideration here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  02:28, 1 January 2012 (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.