Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Mackie

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mackie

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

Promotional and of doubtful notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At present he meets the notability of WP:CURLING, but the policies are set to change (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposed_new_guideline), and he would no longer meet them, as far as I can tell. The World Curling Tour site isn't working properly right now, so I can't look up to see if he has won any events, but none are mentioned in the article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if a person does nominally meet a notability criterion in NCURLING, their includability is still conditional on the article's sourceability — and the article still has to be written neutrally and non-promotionally. (For just the most blatant example of the many problems here, "There is life after the CBC" is not an appropriate section subhead.) So even if NCURLING doesn't change, leaving him still technically clearing the guideline as it stands, the article would still have to be blown up and restarted from scratch with better sourcing, and if it does indeed change, his notability claim won't clear it anymore — and, for that matter, notability for his radio career isn't properly established by reliable sources either. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can properly source him over WP:GNG, but this version just can't stand. Regardless of whether he has a valid notability claim or not, it's the claim's sourceability that determines his includability or lack thereof, not the mere existence of an unsourced claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 03:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibel notability, poor article, and new guidelines. I would expect him to be grandfathered under the new rules, but the article is so bad it can go.

Old articles that fail to meet new standards of quality don't get "grandfathered" as exempt from the new standards — they either get upgraded to the new standards if possible, or deleted if not. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2017 (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.