Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Foenander

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. — Scientizzle 19:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Foenander[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CREATIVE as a broadcaster. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'm not overly familiar with the Sri Lankan broadcasting industry, but I'd imagine that having a #1 with the Sri Lanka Broadcasting Corporation is good enough to pass WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, band has been on top lists and there's a little coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there isn't substantial coverage of this WP:BLP subject then I don't see why we should be making any exceptions to policy. Sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources is lacking!! Fix it or it goes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per JBSupreme's comment re sourcing. --Sarah 16:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no in depth coverage of the subject, just passing mentions therefore fails the notability guidelines. Lustralaustral (talk) 22:45, 24 June 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.