Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Jarvis

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. Mr.Z-man 02:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Jarvis

Contested PROD. Article seems to contain a whole lot of original research, and is mostly not on topic (IE: about 90% of the article is about The Shak, not Drew Jarvis.) Subject may well be notable, but in its current form it would require quite some maintenance to display that Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless fixed par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 11:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, AfD is not cleanup. It would appear that he is a somewhat notable children's television presenter. A quick search on Google News turns up content in The Sunday Mail and The Courier Mail newspapers. Given the content of the article, it's likely this was written by a child, and I think it was a bit mean slapping a prod tag on it four minutes after creation without notifying them or making any attempt to clean the article up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Im tagging articles whenever i check them, which means that my tags will mostly be almost real time. I agree that this can be quite fast, but prod tags give the creator 5 days to fix an article before its even considered for removal, which should be enough time to fix the article :) (And this article had nearly a month). I don't mind if i have to clean up articles, but when i feel the article needs a complete rewrite to make something out of it, i generally tag it for removal. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Lankiveil and fix it per nom. Needing work is not a reason for deletion. when i feel the article needs a complete rewrite to make something out of it, i generally tag it for removal. is a lousy reason for deletion. If the topic is notable it often takes less time to fix it then it does to nom and argue about it at AfD. Time spent fixing is a better and more productive use of time in my opinion. TravellingCari 00:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. I cleaned it up and added the best google news source i could find (The other links were about a war veteran with the same name). Other then that i found the original article to be a direct copyvio of This link. Its still not a great article, but perhaps its an ok stub article for now. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 4 September 2008 (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.