Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil McMenemy

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. Agree with User:Nabla that the focus should be switched to subject's being a former "Scottish national triple jump champion". Dreadstar † 04:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neil McMenemy

Neil McMenemy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not-notable "Capacity Management Consultant", amateur sports coach and former amateur athlete.

WP:Conflict of Interest Article created and solely worked on (apart from administrative edits) by Special:Contributions/Capman67 and Special:Contributions/195.11.196.131, clearly the subject of the article, who has made no other contribution to Wikipedia.

Claims "published" author - a couple of articles in various obscure trade papers.

Article beefed up by references such as "team-mates included (various notables)".

This is basically just a resume. If this guy deserved an article, he wouldn't have to write it himself, and it would imply that everybody in the world who has a profession, has "presented at various seminars" and performed at various amateur sports meets, deserves an article.Camillus (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but switch the focus at being a former "Scottish national triple jump champion". I agree with the nominator on the rest of his arguments. - Nabla (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Still stretching notoriety Rotovia (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• *National champion*, four times, in a individual sport in Scotlad, not a large athletics power but certainly not a small nation, is stretching notoriety? The management stuff?... Deserves at most one sentence but the sport career, competing at the highest level for Scotland sure is worthy of inclusion (still needs copyediting too but thats another issue) - Nabla (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC) PS: Hmmm... actually I agree with you. It is borderline notable (I suffered a short burst of "otherstuffexists syndrome"...) - Nabla (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete but leave open the possibility of a NPOV rewrite with references. Presentation by single-purpose account with apparent COI problems. This is a resume, but written in a different way, it might be worth haning on to... but this article is, unfortunately, beyond redemption. B.Wind (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - it had plenty of good cites, but I'm tempted to block the user for COI violations. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, self-promotion Rotovia (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Should have been listed for CSD A7 in the first place for not being notable. archanamiya · talk 23:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Certainly not a speedy, as importance is asserted--please read WP:CSD. DGG (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2008 (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.