Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Haigh

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Haigh[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 203.51.102.197, rationale is as follows: This page is little more than an advertisement for Mr Haigh. He is not notable in Australia or elsewhere and it should be removed. I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 11:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am interested in hearing other opinions, but there do appear to be some reliably sourced references to him as a correspondent and other references to him in conjunction with Biko [1][2]. Location (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- regardless of 203.51.102.197's agenda (since when are admins proxies for IP's?) - the article and references seem sufficient and not deserving of an Afd. Satu Suro 08:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG. Is notable under Wikipedia:Notability (people) under the creative professional section as "an expert source by major news agencies or publications". There is a couple of decades worth of opinion pieces by him and articles about him. Hack (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2013 (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.