Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan MacDonald
From 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. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nathan MacDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
delete-Probably made up. Would need references to verify the two people are the same. Also, not very noteworthy I am suspicious of any page that seems to be a debater glory bio. Jembot99 11:21, 16 September, 2007
- Nope check here. Looking at the article, seems to be notable being well known nationally (having considerable attention which would just squeak WP:BIO because being notable in Canada) although I would like to see sources in order to assert notability. So i say
NeutralWeak keep for now. I've notified Wikiproject Ottawa for this afd as well.--JForget 23:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. This person appears to be notable just by the very few links I visited and could read about his life and career. The name is pretty common and brings back too many hits on Google to effeciently review all of them. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: If credentials add up and everything else is otherwise OK -- that is if there is no info. pertaining to anybody else with the same or similar name -- THEN he appears notable. Watchingthevitalsigns 13:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I understand your desire to rid Wikipedia of fluffy debater bios, but I think the musical career described in the entry justifies not making this part of the cull. Padraic 17:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- commentIf you feel that way I hope you'll vote to remove Erskine, with the ridiculous stack that's going on there to keep him, with the most tenuous of reasoning, not to mention the nonexistant "competition" of "world public speaking championships".122.148.218.27 21:38, 19 September 2007 (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.