Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John MacTavish

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 keep with leave to speedy renominate. Technically not an SK1 candidate because the nominator did provide a rationale but a very poor one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John MacTavish

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's been left like that for a couple of years now... nobody is even fixing it Godzilladude123 (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close - The user sent it to PROD and AfD. Only the former is necessary (for now). Salvidrim! 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I oppose the proposed deletion because it's not clear to me what the problem with this article (about a videogame character) is, nor does the nomination here explain it. If there is a problem with the article that requires deletion, that needs to be explained further. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nominator puts forth no rationale for deletion. Salvidrim! 20:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - A valid argument for deletion hasn't been advanced in the nomination. See also WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - No rationale given and is non-obvious. -Rushyo ^Talk 10:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know the user didn't give a reason, but look the tags at the top, and the sources at the bottom. There's not a single third party source used, and it's all in-universe plot summary. I haven't looked for any sources, and I'm unfamiliar with this character so I can't say off the top of my head if it should be deleted, or just cleaned up, but it's pretty clear to see what the issue is here... Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try clean-up before ditching it. There's at least one independent RS. I'm not saying it would easily pass notability guidelines. Salvidrim! 16:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - I'm fine with that, I just felt we should discuss the article more than the nominator's shortcomings... Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.