Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Maconie

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. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Maconie

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

Possibly a non-notable person. EnergemDealer2415 (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More probably a very notable popular broadcaster across many different media. So you created an account just to delete this article? Immediately after a spate of single-account vandalism? Ah-ha. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to shut everyone up? Are you the president of his fan club or something? You've defaced the record with your deletions. --Stuart Maconie's Dad (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. An important and popular broadcaster, commentator and writer on a range of topics, with an extensive career and many publications. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's also just been reported for vandalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
- ....and blocked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Ghmyrtle. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known broadcaster in the UK. Added in case help is needed to nullify the threat created by others. Philip Cross (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This person is very notable. Also, given the nominator's questionable page creation and edit record (just see their talk page for proof of this), I recommend a speedy keep. BenLinus 1214^talk 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Possibly a non-notable person" with no explanation is a weak rationale for starting a deletion discussion anyway, but it's ridiculous when by all signs notability is well established, as in this case. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:49, 5 February 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.