Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Nalliah

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The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of comments LibStar (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Nalliah[edit]

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

~~nominating for WP:ONEVENT. he only really gets coverage for one event.~~ [1]. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

correcting nomination, I think he fails WP:BIO. yes there are referenced events, but as below, getting coverage for outrageous comments on bushfires does not necessarily add to his notabilty. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What? I'm seeing three referenced events right there: the major vilification court case; the Senate candidacy and subsequent commentary; and the bushfire criticisms. All are sourced to reliable sources. This AfD nom doesn't make much sense to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so he makes a few outrageous comments on bushfires...I don't think that adds to his notability. And most failed political candidates do not get articles. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we get to have opinions about his remarks. They were reported in reliable sources - that really is the end of it, as regards notability at least. "failed political candidates"? The article isn't here because of his candidacy. His candidacy is a notable aspect of the individual who is the subject of the article. It received reliable coverage. He has been a recurring figure in Australian politico-religious life, if often because of his reportedly bizarre or extreme claims. Incidentally, I suggest you read the full text at WP:ONEVENT - it appears ("what is one event?") to imply that it does not provide a reason for deletion in the current case. I really would have thought this was a no-brainer at AfD, but let's see what others say. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How does he fail WP:BIO? He seems notable to me. St Anselm (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm all for removing non-notable election candidates and such like, but Nalliah hardly fits the bill. He's received coverage for much, much more than one event - the bushfires thing was perhaps most prominent, but he pops up with pretty considerable regularity, and he's probably one of Australia's best-known preachers. I have to agree with Hamiltonstone that this seems like a no-brainer. Frickeg (talk) 23:58, 28 September 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.