Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murdoch MacLeod

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoch MacLeod[edit]

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

The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable, awarded major national award - viz: Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion: therefore meeets WP:ANYBIO.

...and WP:TROUT nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The Keep comment does not respond to the lack of significant third party coverage raised in the AfD. Also, the comment above breaches WP:NPA and is not constructive. The articles submitted to AfD were detailed in another AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Bowen&oldid=686191498, by user User:NewYorkActuary due to the similarities in terms of lack of significant third party coverage. Perhaps the article author could attach sources which demonstrate significant third party coverage to satisfy notability. isfutile:P (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to award - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have expected to find something about the subject, even in relation to this award, in the Scottish media, but searches on both the Scotsman and Glasgow Herald return nothing. In the absence of that, and clear evidence that the many recipients of this particular award each year are inherently notable, it does not seem to pass the WP:BIO criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator has added the name Murdo MacLeod to the article and AfD find sources. Murdo_MacLeod is a popular ex footballer with many references and news listings who is not the same person as the subject of this article and AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And is also the name of a photographer for the Guardian, and several other people. Finding references is not always easy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
And also requires editors take care to ensure such references refer to the correct person it would seem. WP:BLP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murdoch_MacLeod 86.165.112.158 (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:40, 29 November 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.