Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Hana (2nd nomination)

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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable, single website-sourced. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced. I count at least five websites. stuff.co.nz is the collective website of all but two of New Zealand's major daily newspapers. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found two sources which seem good: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10779764 and http://www.3news.co.nz/Tributes-pour-in---but-who-really-was-Blanket-Man/tabid/423/articleID/239457/Default.aspx. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Not-notable outside of locality. Also, the one umbrella web source promoting stories about Hana appears merely indulgent of making a character of a local for web-copy and print if nothing more. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Double vote striked. Nomination for deletion already implies a "delete" vote. Cavarrone (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 03:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable within NZ, but not internationally. Well reported in national, not just local media NealeFamily (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being noteworthy because of media attention. Even more noteworthy is an article about, say, Poverty in New Zealand. But hey, that's how WP works... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why Ben Hana is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" and therefore, in my opinion, the article does not meet WP:BIO.--Juristicweb (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meets WP:BASIC on media coverage NealeFamily (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced, clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't see any valid concern for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has been at AfD before, so if it was considered notable then, how can it have lost notability in the meantime? Schwede 66 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above - SimonLyall (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2012 (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.