Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil McKenty

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 per consensus. Article has been much improved and is now well sourced. (non-admin closure) RMHED (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil McKenty

I prodded this article shortly after its creation, and it was contested by the article's creator, so I left it alone for a few months to grow and mature. It hasn't. On the article's talk page, there's a claim that this man "contributed importantly to the debate on Canada's constitution," but other than the letter to the editor cited as a reference, I'm unable to see what that important contribution was. He has a blog and has written a couple of opinion pieces, but that's all. However, I'm not Canadian, so I don't know if I'm missing a source or another important piece of the puzzle. Unless such sources exist, this article should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 07:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. There appear to be a few sources on gogle news and google books (the first books have him as author, further on there are a few independent references); there are also several reviews and citations on google scholar and jstor (mostly regarding his biography of Mitch Hepburn), including one mention on google scholar that I can't access, but seems to suggest that he was some sort of pioneer in using online paratext to a print book (John P.M. Court, "Bibliographies and Notes as a Separate Online Publication: A Novel Trend in Support of Scholarly Publishing", Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 2002: " ... Note on Sources that I have seen in a narrative form and distinct from endnotes and other supplementary material appears in Neil McKenty, Mitch Hepburn ..."). All of this, together with being a talk-show host, suggests he might be a little bit notable (enough to keep); but like the nominator I don't know enough about Canadian politics and media to give a firm opinion. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Notable author I count 6 books in Google Books. Based on the info there, there's a great deal more to say about him. His leaving the order seems to have been written about. DGG (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of the best-known talk show hosts in Montreal in the 1970s and 1980s. He has written books that have been reviewed in Canadian newspapers. In 1991 he toured Canada as part of the Quebec-Canada Committee to push for Canadian unity and received press coverage for that. I guess the difficulty here is that most of the articles are not accessible via Google. I have started adding references. Keep—easily meets the requirements of WP:N. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GreenJoe (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to elaborate? The nom's concern was the lack of sourcing and I have added citations to seven articles in major Canadian newspapers. Every one of those articles is focused either on McKenty himself, or his TV show or one of his books. WP:N says "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and he has received that level of coverage. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still nothing there to assert any notability. GreenJoe 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me to understand. There are now nine citations to major Canadian newspapers and that is not enough to pass WP:N#General notability guideline? Are you saying the coverage is trivial, the sources are not reliable, or that they are not independent of the subject? I don't mean to badger you, but I am honestly perplexed by what you are saying. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil was a legendary figure in English Montreal broadcasting. Plus the article is thoroughly referenced with prominent citations from major daily newspapers. Strong Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is much improved, longer and well-cited, including articles from newspapers across Canada, a good sign of notability. --Slp1 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article establishes notability, it's at the weak end but it's good enough to stay and be improved in future. Franamax (talk) 03:52, 29 January 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.