Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murdoch MacLeod (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Murdoch MacLeod
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An exhaustive discussion here concluded that this awards did not confer notability. MBE does not either (though CBE does) There's nothing else that shows notability. The sources appear to be mere press releases.  DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion was by no means exhaustive.  And the combination of the MBE and the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion may well exceed the required standard for notability.  Press releases an be RS, and the document formerly at 2&r.i=1084954027&r.t=RESOURCES The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion was a booklet published by Her Majesty's Government.
 * The previous AfD was relisted twice, making this the fourth listing of this article. I find the repeated attacks on the winners of this award a little disappointing.
 * Also the previous AfD made it clear that this person is often known as "Murdo MacLeod". Not including the search teem for that indicates a lack of WP:BEFORE.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The article has had a long time to improve, yet relies on the award (for which notability is contested) for notability. I've searched for reliable third party news mentions and not found any. In fact it is really difficult to find anything about this specific individual which isn't advertising or marketing output. I don't believe this article passes WP:BIO and I can't find any evidence this individual is notable. I don't buy the idea that the award satisfies Wp:Before - it's essentially a 'job for the boys' industry hand-out given to a lot of glad-handing people after years of service, at let's face it, local level, and not national level. The recipients are local awards - it's just the grandiose title which implies - perhaps less than ingenuously - a national achievement. Onus should be on the article writer to demonstrate that this individual is notable, and that the award does in fact satisfy WP:Before and WP:Anybio - which I've yet to see any evidence of, other than pure assertion. I'll gladly change my mind if this can be demonstrated.Tonyinman (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * These awards are covered nationally, including on the Government's web site. The Queens Award For Enterprise Promotion is not a "local awards" it is national, and is awarded to a small number of people every year.  Nor are they "jobs for the boys", the physical award consists of a piece of crystal glass, and the only other tangible benefit is garden party invite.  I would imagine the majority of recipients are left out of pocket due to travel and sartorial costs.
 * Note also, that unlike the other Queens Awards these are for life, and are to individuals and not organizations.
 * There may be reasonable alternatives to "keep" but "delete" is not one of them
 * Closer should note that the above user's edits since September 2015 have been almost exclusively about deleting or otherwise worsening the coverage of this award and its winners, effectively becoming an WP:SPA since that date.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Comment noted; but will not be dignified with a response. Tonyinman (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rich Frustration noted, but one can't become an SPA, that's akin to becoming a virgin. Specialist or single-minded maybe, but specialisation seems an effective strategy given the complexity here. I'm presuming we all agree with notability, but without additional backpressure on (the systemic bias of) promotion, how are we meant to keep the place tidy? Widefox ; talk 15:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete BIO failure and a BLP lacking strong secondary sources. I haven't checked sourcing myself, so nothing against userfying if I'm wrong and someone desires. Delete is right for this WP:permastub. (back of my mind is phrase "promo promo"). Widefox ; talk 09:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment trying to understand the lack of participants at the 1st AfD, and the closure as no consensus. Ping User:Jkudlick to generate more participants and suggest admin closure (not suggesting anything untoward last time). Widefox ; talk 10:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I closed the last AfD as no consensus because it had already been relisted twice (relisting more than twice is done only in extreme circumstances) with no participation after the second relisting and there was clearly no consensus. As it had been more than 168 hours since the second relisting with no additional comment, I performed a non-admin closure. Discussion on whether receiving the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion makes the recipient notable should take place on the talk page there, but the only such discussion was two sentences this past April. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Queen%27s_Award_for_Enterprise_Promotion#AfD_on_a_recipient for whether the award confered notability was done here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janet_Brumby . The consensus was that the award did not confer notability. Tonyinman (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely it's clear that notability is due to the award (WP:NOTINHERITED applies) a BLP permastub better redirected? I would have closed Redirect myself, so no, it's not clear to me, but User:Jkudlick, this provides an opportunity to !vote here. Widefox ; talk 16:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete by all means as there's still not convincingly enough to suggest an actually substantially better article, I haven't found better. SwisterTwister   talk  04:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- nothing comes up on Google books. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true. for a start.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Passing mention in what appears to be an advertorial. Tonyinman (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- not notable for stand alone article (or in this case, stub). Kierzek (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Rich is adding various pieces of biographical content, some of which are either WP:OR or not backed by reliable sources. I'm taking a break from this, and leaving it to others to look at the edit history if interested. Tonyinman (talk) 20:06, 30 July 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.