Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wallace Mcdonald


 * 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. While rough consensus is for deletion, there is also a great lack of verification of the facts alleged in the article. His work as a businessman alone is not sufficient for inclusion and there is no verification of his skills as an author. Deletion is without prejudice to re-creation when and if sources are brought forward. JodyBtalk 14:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

George Wallace Mcdonald

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Author shows no inclination to respond to the need to establish notability. I'm willing to be patient, but if we don't soon see citations to independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, we ought to flush the article, right? Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not established. ukexpat (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article appears to describe to me the author of multiple notable books and designer of a notable product. The sourcing needs some work, but the article content appears to indicate the subject passes the third criterion of WP:CREATIVE.  So, unless this is a hoax, this is a clean-up issue, not a deletion one. JulesH (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  19:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with JulesH that if the article content is true, he passes the notability test.  The problem is I can't easily find any sources to back any of the statements up.  If someone can provide sources, I'll happily change this !vote to Keep.  Linguist At Large  19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I added a source for that Z-thing. That and two books, that might be enough. But I'm not particularly attached to it, and I am going to cut some fluff in the article (and work on some grammar and style...). Drmies (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment — Oh, what the heck? MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Notwithstanding the above (I'm quite sure coincidental) comment I have made the other day, the article cannot exhibit enough significant coverage from secondary sources to establish WP:BIO. MuZemike  ( talk ) 20:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Bad news: Looks like a promotion for something called "Z-card", likely will be deleted.  Good news: Wal-Mart bakery will be glad to decorate his birthday cake.  Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, the 156 jobs, that is actually in that article I referenced. Funny how the original author never considered adding anything that might could be called a reference--the ZCard website had nothing that was the least bit informative. And I wasn't going to say anything about that card itself. Or about Shoprite! Drmies (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Z-Card web site contains enough information to show notability of Z-Card (i.e. it has references to magazines discussing the product). This is a useful start. JulesH (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? It has this, and it's impossible to tell where that's from (besides 'Schoenmaker page 16'), and there's this from the Guardian: a half-sentence which proves that the product exists and that someone bought it. What else is there on the site that I missed? Drmies (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Anyone who has read the article since User:Drmies trimmed it will have missed a relevant fact that I've just restored; that two of his books were featured in a notable TV series. JulesH (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I looked at it again, and I'm sorry I deleted that--you'll have to admit, though, that it was easy to miss the relevant information in that half-sentence, given that none of the information in the article was organized or formatted according to WP standards (I mean italics, Wiki links, etc.) and that the whole thing appeared to be one big run-on sentence. But thanks for cleaning up and restoring. Note also that I did not vote to delete the article, and have added a reference.
 * But note also this: the original entry did not list Katie Wood as a co-author, and there was (is) no actual evidence that his book was 'featured' (nor have I been able to find any). So really, this 'featured,' I am inclined to take that with a grain of salt: the article just does not look authoritative, and I have little reason to believe the author(s) at their word. This article still needs independent coverage. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - looks like a conflict of interest at work. Deb (talk) 13:02, 22 December 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.