- 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Music Boy50 (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobo Faulkner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not really suit wikipedia guidelines neither the subject is Notable. Music Boy50 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as creator): Which guidelines do you think it "does not really suit"? Regarding notability, subject was the presenter of several national television programs in Australia, columnist in a national broadsheet newspaper, went on to found a successful business in the United States, and was given an obituary in the San Francisco Chronicle (possibly paid) and The Sydney Morning Herald. --Canley (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well-sourced and notable.
- Cool, But all this which you just said has no independent reliable reference on the article. The name of the subject haven't being discuss on reliable source to prove verification, only found Obituary: Bobo Faulkner. --Music Boy50 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the Sydney Morning Herald article (not used as it was written several months later). Every statement is referenced, and there are also at least six other independent, reliable references, so I'm not sure what the issue is. The Chronicle obituary was still published by them, however there is an anonymous comment that it was "paid" in the article history—nonetheless I would consider that a reliable reference. --Canley (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator seems confused: there are a bunch of reliable sources here and a pretty obvious claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.