Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alister MacKenzie

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  28 June 2005 09:52 (UTC)

Alister MacKenzie
Marked for speedy but isn't a candidate. Seems to be a notable golf course designer, actually, but this article doesn't tell us much of anything and is POV. Nominator abstains from voting.  &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at cleaning this up. I hope this is any better. (User Aecis not logged in and working from another computer than his own). 195.169.89.233 10:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And in case there are any doubts: I hereby want to verify that the cleanup was indeed done by me, so noone is posing as me besides myself. Aecis 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per nominator reasoning. But I'd really like to see some expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:23, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but with drastic un-POV-ing, cleanup and expansion. Aecis 09:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or completely re-write. "Perhaps the greatest golf course designer of all time." While those are notable courses, there is no further information. While the subject probably merits an article, this is not it. --M412k 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Looking at the first page of google hit summaries, even without opening any links, makes this a very clear keep.  Needs cleanup and expand, not VfD.  -- Un focused 20:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with M412k. JamesBurns 23:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want cleanup or expansion VfD is the place to go, the cleanup and expansion tags are basically decorations these days. Anyway, rather than voting "keep but clean and expand" I'll vote Delete unless cleaned and expanded . I hate to see stuff like this kept because there were enough keep votes, but not fixed because "clean and expand" votes don't actually perform the functions of cleaning or expanding. People have to do that, and if they don't then I'd rather have nothing than this. -R. fiend 00:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh. It's been made into a minimally adequate stub, so I'll change to keep now. Certainly could use work though. -R. fiend 17:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If VfD had less of this kind of marginal traffic, and more editors willing to just clean such articles into acceptable stubs instead of nominating them VfD, there would be more time to devote to the real cleanup projects.  Un focused 04:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep' to discourage Vfd being used as a substitute for cleanup. Kappa 05:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. If you were to say to a golf aficionado, "Alister McKenzie is the greatest golf course designer of all time," you may get an argument, but you won't get laughed at. That being said, this needs major expansion, and the POV has to go. Dale Arnett 09:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete to discourage people from posting crappy substubs. Gamaliel 09:43, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stubs serve a valid purpose. In fact, it is better to have a stub than nothing. The alternative is akin to mowing the saplings because they aren't trees yet. Prune, water and fertilize. Dystopos 05:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Most stubs are better than nothing. Poorly written, POV substubs in general are not. Now, rather than talking about these needed changes, anyone feel like making them? The article's been sitting around for a while in the exact same pisspoor form. I actually fully expected the article would have been made into an adequate stub by now so I could change my vote, but I see it hasn't. -R. fiend 14:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.