Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie maclean

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 of the debate was userified by author. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 16:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Natalie maclean

Appears to be autobiography (article and author are the same), although Google search does yield many results the apparent commercial link suggests self-promotion, no pages link to this article, text is exactly the same as user page Si-Jay 14:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedily Delete nn, vanity. tagged with {{db-bio}}. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 14:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Unsure Definitely NOT a speedy candidate, although the first paragraph does look like one. Article presents substantial claims of notability, such as being named "World's Best Drink Writer" and numerous published articles in mainstream publications. Unfortunately none of this is backed up with verifiable sources, though if sources are added I'd say this might be a keeper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Having stumbled across this while go through speedy-candidate articles, I agree. I've removed the speedy tag in favour of this AfD debate. —Whouk (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I guess even Geogre's Law has exceptions. Google gets 32,000 hits, including http://www.winesofcanada.com/natalie_maclean.html, http://gremolata.com/natalie_maclean.htm, http://www.winewriterscircle.ca/members/nmaclean.html, that all confirm the many awards. Here's looking at you, kid. AnonEMouse 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Side note - I doubt the article writer is the same as the article subject. If she is truly an internationally renowned journalist, she would not forget to capitalize her own last name -- in two places, even. AnonEMouse 15:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The writer even userfied the article already. That just goes to show what sort of vanity, nn-bio junk this is. -- Kicking222 16:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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.