Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McNaught

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John McNaught[edit]

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

Full disclosure, I'm the original creator here -- in 2005, when our notability and sourcing rules were very different than they are now. But both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably over the past decade, and my own sense of what's suitable for inclusion and what isn't has evolved alongside them -- but under the standards that apply today, there's just not enough substance here beyond "he existed", and I just did a ProQuest search and found that save for his obituary and some glancing namechecks in coverage of his ex-wife, he's not the subject of enough media coverage to add anything more than we already have. So it was acceptable by the standards of 2005 -- but by the standards of 2016, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hard topic to decide on. One the one hand, he clearly fails GNG by my Google search, but that is mainly because he is from a less digital era and many references (especially media) would not be available at this point. That said, I feel that an argument can be made to keep the article based on WP:CREATIVE point three, on the basis that he created a well-known body of work at the time with his various news and journal articles (non-academic). It is difficult to judge the impact that he had this far after the fact, but I think that overall the page is worth keeping. Ajraddatz (Talk) 08:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 27 February 2016 (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.