Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm McKay
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malcolm McKay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The author of this autobiography removed a prod which said "no evidence of notability" but apparently thinks he is exempt from providing such evidence. (If the decision is delete, User:Malcolmgmckay should also be deleted.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Highly notable person who suitability for inclusion should be beyond doubt. The deletion process should not be our first resort when a clearly notable person provides useful content in problematic form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A cursory check for sources finds plenty of evidence of notability, some of which has been referenced in the article by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The nominator apparently thinks he is exempt from the requirement to spend a few seconds checking before nominating for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite the main part of the article is totally unsourced, the subject appears clearly notable. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2011 (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.