Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael McKeon


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Michael McKeon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It seems he was best known for his involvement with both politician's careers and my searches show this, this and this and it seems he's still questionable for his own actual notable article, since he can't have inherited notability from simply working with those two politicians. SwisterTwister  talk  06:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Not notable per WP:GNG in his own right AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Highly probable keep Not sure yet, except I am certain that this one needs more than a cursory dismissal. It would, at the very least, be important to read the articles in Sister Twister 's searches and in searches in the NYTimes, WSJ , WaPo , CNN , Politico and other papers.  We wouldn't, after all, delete an artidle on Leo McGarry on the grounds that "he can't have inherited notability from simply working with" a politician or two.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e talk 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally fails WP:GNG. The one reference cited in the article gives him a couple of sentences: he used to work for X, now he is working for Y. All the searches cited above by Swister Twister and E.M.Gregory lead to articles where he is mentioned in passing, almost always in a sentence like "such-and-such, said Michael McKeon, a spokesman for so-and-so." That is not significant coverage; it is not even coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. He seems only notable for having worked with notable politicians. The only source listed in the article is a very short, passing mention.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 05:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Getting a bunch of short references as a press person and giving out various statements isn't what you can build a good article on. He's been associated with multiple notable organizations and individuals, sure, but it doesn't seem that he passes the bar himself. I'd get rid of the article as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (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.