Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Kirk McGill


 * 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. A separate discussion may be needed to determine whether to redirect and where to.  Sandstein  12:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Kirk McGill

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An auditor that blew the whistle on corruption. The three main sources are a 180 page primary document, McGill's resume and McGill's linkedIn page. We also have video of and hour plus long committee hearing and sources that don't mention McGill, but mention the corruption. There was a section on a Wikipedia page being vandalized and how it was unusual it wasn't noticed. There is also a bit of WP:SYNTH going on.

The problem is there are no reliable, independent secondary sources. It's either primary or unreliable. Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now at best as the current article needs excessive improving that it would likely simply be better to restart it when better. SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:BLP1E. McGill is notable only for being a whistleblower and coverage in the existing Defense Contract Audit Agency article is sufficient.  If anything, the section in the DCAA article is probably getting into WP:UNDUE territory. Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I moved the substance of the allegation discussion to the Defense Contract Audit Agency article presuming that this one will be deleted. I leave it to others to edit that as needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I will try to add additional materials as the situation develops -- it's tough because  this sort of situation is extremely important to have recorded especially to be accessible to future whistleblowers and the public, but by the very nature of government there isn't that much information out there. While I understand (and generally support) Wikipedia's guidelines, in this particular case I'm afraid that they're going to result in a lot of important information that ought to be publicly available not being publicly available. That said, I respect the results of the process and Leavitt others to determine how best to get the information that ought to be on Wikipedia to where it belongs. I appreciate the constructive criticism from the community on this matter. I will try to learn more about the communities guidelines and expectations before I make another attempt at major edits or any standalone content. I appreciate the patients of the community for new members like myself. That being said, I would strongly encourage the committee to keep an eye on this particular issue in case there is an attempted government censorship/vandalism again.

Hethofpern (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect- As per WP:BLP1E - aside from that incident, nothing to make him notable, so an article is not appropriate. I would have suggested a merge to List of whistleblowers, but he's already there. Since there is news coverage of the event, someone might search, so redirecting to the List of whistleblowers would work.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.