Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent McMartin


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 21:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Trent McMartin
del vanity. mikka (t) 02:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please put more effort into your nominations. This is no more than a vote, and not a particularly good one at that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * huh? You don't know what "vanity" means? mikka (t) 06:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "vanity" is fine for a vote. Nominators should be explaining why they think something's vanity rather than simply voting "del".  See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. Next time I'll be more verbose. I thought it is evident: the article presents no claims of notability. There are thousands of journalists, now hundreds of thouands of online journalists. His webpresence is barely noticeable. mikka (t) 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable vanity. 500 Google hits, mostly fancruft websites. Ifnord 04:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why delete it. Type in Trent McMartin's name into Google and it will pop up all over the place. Sure he's not as known as some writers but he's one of Canada's up and coming writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs)
 * So when he finally comes, come again. mikka (t) 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Restore blanked article, expand it, and keep. Canadian journalists aren't usually known in the American south. This one is, which indicates notability in the US, if not Canada.  But the restored article needs some more substance - it seemed to have the references/external links before it was blanked. B.Wind 04:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per B.Wind. Skeezix1000 12:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.95.203 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as per B.Wind. peachlette 19:06, 11 December 2005 (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.