Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn "Bomber" Bradbury[edit]

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

unsourced BLP. There is some negative material here, but possibly not enough to categorise it as an attack page. I doubt that sufficient reliable sources can be found to justify an article. Prod removed without sources being added.gadfium 05:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy enough, he is on tv all the time and is a former Craccum Editor. Notable in my books. Lack of sources is not a problem, I spent less time to find a source than I took to write this "Keep"! (I've add it too) Mathmo ^Talk 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Being a former Craccum editor is hardly notable, otherwise I'd have an article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and being a Craccum editor alone is hardly a reason but being one amongst a number of reasons is enough. Mathmo ^Talk 07:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and Keep - The fellow seems to be reasonably notable as a New Zealand media and political figure - if anyone seriously disputes that I'll find specific sources - and therefore it's not an appropriate candidate for a delete. But as a controversial living person it's important his article be appropriately sourced. I don't have time to do it, so failing someone else taking up that task, the correct approach is to delete the unsourced controversial info on a statement-by-statement basis until it's a non-controversial stub and then keep it. I'll do the stubification, if the consensus agrees with me. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he is not notable then the whole article is a hoax. Just give us some sources please. Borock (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - not sure what your protocol is on these matters - I'm the chap in question here and would very much enjoy keeping my wikipedia page thanks - the reason there are numerous edits is because I get a bit of grief from the right wing blogging community and that community seem pretty happy to edit things that are simply not true into my profile at times when debate on the blogs gets heated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.91.147 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As fas as I know, none of that is sufficient reason to keep a wiki article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:40, 21 March 2010 (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.