Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McIntyre and McKitrick

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete for McIntyre and McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre kept.. - Mailer Diablo 07:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

McIntyre and McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Publishing a paper together, even a high profile one, does not justify its own wiki page. No links on "what links here". Dragons flight 09:15, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable.  I've also listed Stephen McIntyre for vfd and have redirected him to this page.  The Ross McKitrick article seems to be ok.  RickK 09:43, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Stephen McIntyre; delete McI & McK.

(William M. Connolley 20:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I disagree with listing these together. SM *does* have links to it.


 * Keep Stephen McIntyre, delete McIntyre and McKitrick. --Spinboy 03:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Stephen McIntyre, delete McIntyre and McKitrick, slap hand of editor who created it. ;) -Willmcw 21:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC).
 * Keep McIntyre (likely expandable); delete the unnecessary disambig. Bearcat 05:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Stephen McIntyre (author of a high profile paper), delete McIntyre and McKitrick (unlikely that anyone would be searching for this term). Andris 00:36, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.