Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob McDowall (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. Wizardman 19:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob McDowall
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Per DRV decision to overturn G4 speedy deletion and list on AfD. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete He has not been the subject of independent secondary source material. The comments made in the first deletion still stand: good article, good man, but not encyclopaedic. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. He gets one Google Scholar hit, which is for the blood campaign and Google News has him speaking about this to the BBC and the Scottish papers in a few articles. He also gets covered in Scotland On Sunday concerning a deportation case. He now has coverage for more than a single issue but the coverage is still far too shallow for me to vote "keep" with conviction. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment These articles report various subject matters, and quote McDowall as a spokesperson. The coverage is not directed to McDowall in detail per WP:GNG - it is directed towards the matters on which he campaigns. In my view, this makes him no different to a spokesperson or activist for any interest group. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. The standard is coverage of the subject in reliable sources, not mentions of him in relation to something else.  The news appearances seem to be quoting the viewpoint of an opinionated person, not quoting him as a major figure in the issue. Chick Bowen 21:45, 19 December 2009 (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.