Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Island of Doctor Moron

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Island of Doctor Moron

WITHDRAWN BY NOM--Gaff (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

NN play, released to small local market at a small theater in Sydney (http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/theatre/venues/7111/new-olympia-theatre). Does not meet WP:GNG. I found a couple refs, but they are small local media reviews (and not exactly positive). Gaff (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant COI: article creator & WP:SPA User:Chris Dockrill also created the play. Gaff (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment see article talk page. Article creator left a long message on my talk page, which I have moved there. Gaff (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per significant coverages in multiple independent reliable sources enough to meet WP:GNG. The fact that the article creator is a single purpose account editor coupled with a blatant WP:COI is irrelevant as long as the subject meet the criteria for inclusion, particularly WP:GNG or other criteria. Tokyogirl79 had helped in the POV wording remover and general clean up. I also removed some content per WP:UNSOURCED. I think notability in this case should focus on the significant coverages in reliable sources in that country or region. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage. Meets WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN BY NOM--Gaff (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]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.