Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Macdonnell

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. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Macdonnell

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. a non notable local councillor. hardly anything in gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. -RobertMel (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that city councillors (with the possible exception of those in major cities) are not generally deemed notable just for holding office. I'd suggest that listing them in Coquitlam City Council would be the appropriate solution here, but even that title seems to be a redirect to Coquitlam rather than an independent article. Delete, though if an article about the council itself is ever initiated it would be acceptable to redirect the councillors' names to it. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2010 (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.