Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim McLennan

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLennan

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

Not a notable person, fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out let's discuss it 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unclear how this could meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I don't think a page could be made out of this. mikeman67 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The organisation McLennan leads is a significant educational institution.--Graham Proud (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that does not mean he is automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear cut case of failing WP:BIO. Insufficient evidence. LibStar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2014 (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.