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. Joyous! | Talk 00:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom MacWright[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above. Few WP:RELIABLE sources, and no more than passing mentions. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as quite trivial information, nothing convincing and there's simply no substance, amounting to nothing for an acceptable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSassmouth (talk) 05:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 07:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:05, 21 November 2016 (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.