Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real MacKay (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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Real MacKay
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is not inherited. Last discussed at Articles_for_deletion/The_Real_MacKay for a merge (reversed at DR because of nominator withdrawal) and still doesn't show evidence of notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * SO why is there NO mention of the blogs on the STV news page? its like it been whitewashed from history, Ive notice FAR too many points and things are being whitewashed or taken out as there now classed as history...--Crazyseiko (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source about the blogs? I haven't been able to find one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * So we know 1+1 = 2 but if its not written down its not real? Thats still not a good enough reason for whitewashing history. --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Asking for a source about a blog from a newstation is not "whitewashing history." Is there one broadcast that actually has long-term relevance? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk STV rebrand in 2009, 2014, talk about STV Glasgow, STV news rebrand. Start of Scotland Tonight. There talk to people about certain news stories and the BIG events like Pipa alpha etc There spoken to reporters who have wiki page about there life and jobs, New STV studio.   Its Pretty clear you never watched them or have any knowledge about this subject. --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't which is why I'm asking for independent sources about it. WP:TRUTH. That they have reported on things is fine (the truth isn't the issue here, I know the blogs exist) but is there any information on a particular report of theirs that actually was newsworthy (the report not their subject)? I don't consider the fact that the newspaper had a vblog about it asking its reporters about their wiki pages particularly compelling (or really anything but advertising). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)




 * I might go ahead with this, BUT only if the information ( at least a name check on the STV news page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (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.