Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Scanlon

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Scanlon

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, Google search showed lots of semi-notable people with this name. Has been unref and tagged for notability for 8 years; hopefully we can now resolve this one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CatcherStorm ^talk 21:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but maybe cut it back somewhat. There are sufficient sources to confirm that Terry Scanlon was, as the article says, an Australian comedian who lived from 1913 to 1996. There are materials about him in the National Library of Australia [1] and a short bio at the Australian Variety Theatre Archive notes that he had his own TV variety show at one point. [2] Google turns up assorted mentions in news and book references such as [3][4][5][6][7][8]. So: very likely notable, but the online resources seem to be sketchy. Maybe someone else can come up with a more detailed obituary or other material. If not, some of the unverified detail might be cut back. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 355 newspaper article hits at Trove, see particularly: W.A. COMEDIAN HAS MADE THE BIG TIME (1950), which confirms many biographical details included but not referenced in the article. Subject clearly notable and article can easily be improved to reflect this. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by the hard work and good arguments of the editors above. If anyone has time to work on it, great, but it now seems notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2016 (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.