Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Martin

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 and redirect. Probably not expandable in the near future, a redirect would suit best. Sr 13 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Martin

This information is listed on the main Temptation page therefore a second page is not needed. Sstephens 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this living person asserts no notability other than winning a game show. (→zel zany - uses a new sig) 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Temptation page. Capmango 02:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Article subject is not notable outside of the individual game show, and I doubt that enough reliable sources let alone notable actions, works, or others that would exist to even consider an article getting close to meeting WP:BIO. As noted by nom and ors, the information is already in the main article regarding the game show, so keep it there. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete He is a game show contestant and not notable for anything outside winning at Temptation. There isn't even content worth merging to the main Temptation article. As I asked at another AfD, how is this different from including the winning family on Bert's Family Feud or for that matter winning the lottery? -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N, person with similar notability was speedily deleted (Yolanda Stopar)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 03:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Orderinchaos 06:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Recurring dreams 09:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. He might not be notable outside the show, but his name is still a valid search entry, which means a redirect is a sensible idea according to policy. When the title redirects, there's no longer a particular need to delete the material (if we delete often enough before placing a redirect, it is gonna strain the servers). Besides, if the material is taken from this page in the first place, we need the redirect to comply with the GFDL. We need to know which came first before deletion is even legal. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, per Mgm. Jacek Kendysz 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it helps prevent re-creation. BTW - on Wikipedia you can't both Delete AND redirect (well, I guess the delete might clear out the history from the redirect but why bother)...Ga rr ie 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Google News Archive comes up with nothing on him but he is notable in terms of the show. Capitalistroadster 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and redirect; Google News does have results, but essentially they are two pieces, a focus piece and a minor mention; a before and after on the TV show ratings. However, he is the sixth to do it, so unless there is another claim to notability, I dont see the lasting value in having a bio. John Vandenberg 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: the article cannot be expanded further, other than his time in Temptation. But at least the article can be redirected to the main article as his win is definitely notable. Don't delete the page. RaNdOm26 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources cited, therefore not notable WP:N. Assize 13:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV programme article, as above. Lankiveil 11:34, 14 June 2007 (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.