Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K.N.Taylor

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. postdlf (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K.N.Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Okay I Had this as a unsourced BLP tag until I just found out its not a BLP. Anyway this page is more of a "how great this person is" as opposed to what made him great. Hard to find this guy also searching considering how many results you get fro K N Taylor! Wgolf (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Note an alternate spelling of the subject's name as referred to in media sources.

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

– NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. A source example includes: [1]. Furthermore, these sources were published after the subject passed away, and provide overviews (to various degrees) of the subject to qualify a Wikipedia article: [2], [3], [4], [5]. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The Article is simply a stub and clearly does not qualify BLP at all moreover one source isn't sufficient to prove it's notabilityDormantos (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This newly registered account has left the very similar deletion rationales (almost every one a "strong delete") on dozens of AfDs in rapid fashion. Likely he did not read any of the articles (one he said fails "BLP" was a company, for example). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough good sources for notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – How so, and what is your definition of "good sources"? Did you see and view the sources I posted in this discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve, per Northamerica1000. He's the winner of multiple awards for cinema (I've added two more to the article, with references), and there is good coverage online from WP:Reliable sources in English alone. I haven't searched yet for online coverage in Tulu or Hindi. Dai Pritchard (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-well this will probably be closed as neutral given the 50/50, but it is tough to find someone with the name KN Taylor though as I said before. Wgolf (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Totally unconvincing deletion rationale, sources found clearly demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep on the basis of the awards Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2015 (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.