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. X clamation point 01:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Gosling[edit]

Yet another prodded article with prod notice (and reference tag) removed by a serial deprodder whose only explanation was "notable" with no explanation. Minor journalist, the few reliable sources prove his existence but do not give any sort of reason why he should have an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources prove notability.--Sloane (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of details but no particular claim to notability, fails WP:BIO. If Esasus or anyone else can find enough refs to establish notability, I will gladly change my vote. §FreeRangeFrog 00:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability. Adam Zel (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of google hits (11,600) [1] and I have added external links to the article. Included in these are links to several articles that establish that Tony Gosling meets the General notability guideline per [[2]], that is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The articles [3] certainly meets this criteria, and among the 11,600 google hits there are more. Also the one-on-one interviews with Gosling meets the criteria for significant coverage, and his extensive list of published articles he has written [4] in evidence of a significant fan base following.Esasus (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2009 (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.