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 Snowball delete --JForget 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McKeown[edit]

Steve McKeown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article was deleted under proposed deletion guidelines, but the deletion was contested on my talk page. The original nominator's reasoning was "Non notable psychtherapist, as-yet unpublished author, partner of a notable person - doesn't seem to stack up to notability." The subject of the article does not appear to meet criteria for notability outlined in WP:BIO, so I've brought the article here to AFD for wider input. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. BigDunc^Talk 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article doesn't even assert notability. I can't find any secondary sources other than ones about his engagement, which doesn't make him notable. I agree with the prodder. Deor (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - should have been a speedy delete. No notability, no assertion of notability; basically an advertisement for him by an s.p.a. who may well be McKeown himself. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the editor who prodded the article, having considered speedying. The notability claims don't stack up for me, but in generous mode I was prepared to view them as indeed being claims. --Dweller (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Borderline speedy; fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are all based on assumptions, his book will be released and will have huge impact. He is being promoted in OK magazine in the next 3 weeks for his work, largest mag in europe, he has featured in the Mag previously. Benefit of doubt I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccer123 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC) — Maccer123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • See WP:CRYSTALBALL. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep As a avid fan, here are my reasons, The reasons fo the deletion of Steve McKeown are incorrect. Steve McKeown is a therapist in the UK, please see his personal website www.themckeownclinic.co.uk, please also see the organisation that he is affiliated to www.theiah.com. Steve McKeown will be publishing his new book in 8 weeks time. There will be media attention. Steve McKeown is officially engaged to Michelle Bass, Big Brother and Glamour Model, please see her official website www.michellebassofficial.com for proofe. Please un-delete this profile as your reasons are not justified or correct and only your assumption with no evidence of research, only your personal oppinion, again incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccer123 (talk • contribs)
  • You may only !vote once ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and relationships do not confer notability. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO, book means nothing as there is no way to tell how big it will be --T-rex 15:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing at resembling a claim of notability in this highly promotional article is that he got a namedrop in a tabloid. I'd have A7'd it, and G11 would be defensible as well. —Cryptic 07:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably should have been an A7 speedy, but at least a vote will help it stick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 19 June 2008 (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.