Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiel McNaughton

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 Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiel McNaughton

Kiel McNaughton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Disputed notability of this person. I am uninvolved and cast no vote. Ryan Delaney talk 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some have dated PRODs, and others have already been WP:CSD#A7 deleted. —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 11:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And since when has that been a valid argument in AFD? We have a prolific author who doesn't know how to reference things properly. dramatic (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. I'm not in favour of having articles on everyone who has ever appeared on Shortland St, but the actors in major roles do become celebrities in New Zealand. Most of the top 50 gHits are about him, and I could probably track down several magazine features too. dramatic (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you can find them, then you're welcome to add them … but without WP:Reliable sources for the WP:Verifiability of claims that the subject meets the WP:BIO criteria (being a "national celebrity" notwithstanding), the article violates WP:NOR and should be deleted … one reason for the AfD process is to allow time for improvements. :-) —141.156.234.101 (talk · contribs) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, we now have independent references for his having a main cast role in a primetime TV show (I shouldn't have to justify the notability of Shortland Street here) and an independent feature film. That should be sufficient notability to retain the article. Yes, there is still some unreferenced material in there, but that is pretty much par for the course. If necessary, that material should be deleted, not the whole article.dramatic (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2007 (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.