Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James C. Mulligan


 * 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) 09:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

James C. Mulligan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

BLPPROD tag removed by author, so here we are. This is a slightly promotional (official website, twitter links) page that has no sources whatsoever. No articles link here and the author has no other edits. Seems to fail lots of notability criteria. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I count three source citations in the References section of the article. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a references section, sure, but no way to verify; they are all plain text: Palm Springs Life May 2007, TV Guide January 1995, Who's Who in American art. Google links are all Twitter, MySpace, etc. If there's notability, I'd expect to see a relevant interview or review. If they exist, I'm wrong and that's fine. But, those three "references" don't convince me in the slightest. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 11:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "No way to verify plain text", my eye! That's a very poor show of trying to check a citation.  A citation isn't a hyperlink; and a citation that gives the name and issue date of a periodical magazine is a fairly concrete citation that tells you, the reader, what to go and ask for from the back issues archive.  Indeed, it doesn't take much working out to infer that a citation in a biography of a Who's Who (in this case Who's Who in American Art) will be the biography of that person in that Who's Who.  We're supposed to look and read and engage our thinking matter, not act helpless in the face of something that we cannot just click upon and be spoon-fed. Uncle G (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Enough with the attacks. This is an AFD. Deal with it. I mean, have you even tried googling this guy? The best I get is a single credit for a theater company. One of the references says TV Guide January 1995. What does that even mean? Was there a feature about him? Did he design the cover? Seriously, if some notability existed, it would probably be in the article. I've tried a number of google searches to get anything at all, but it doesn't seem to exist. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 18:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no attack there. But there is a conclusion that you made a very poor show of trying to check a citation, claiming, as you did, that you couldn't check it because it didn't spoon-feed a hyperlink to you.  Have you looked at the Who's Who?  It certainly seems that you have made zero effort to do so, given that your immediate response to the above was rather to nominate the Who's Who in American Art article for deletion.  You don't appear to be making any attempt to look at the sources cited, or even into working out what is cited.  It's fairly clear what TV Guide is.  Will your response now be to nominate the TV Guide article for deletion, as well?   Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I have now searched for several hours trying to find claims of notability, and they don't seem to exist. Can anyone just throw unreferenceable references on a page, and then we are to believe it? I don't. I've tried to find TV Guide archives to see what that ref means. I've tried to determine how the "Palm Springs Life" reference means anything. I just cannot. Again, are these articles about the author? It's a bunch of hocus pocus; if there were valid links or sources about this topic, surely they would be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timneu22 (talk • contribs) 2010-07-02 11:26:18
 * I don't think it's a hoax. I haven't been able to find much but there are bits and pieces like this and this, which at least show that some of the claims are true. Trouble is, they don't really show evidence of notability (performances in amateur dramatic productions that is). I can't find him in the Who's Who, but gbooks doesn't have the recent years of it even on snippet view, so he could well have an entry. At the moment it is very difficult to decide because there is nothing to say what is in the purported references, and whether they are significant coverage. Quantpole (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the establishment of notability is quite a challenge on this one. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Come now! You claim to be spending "hours" Googling, but it doesn't take much aptitude with Google Web, or even more than a minute or so using it, to turn up the fact that Palm Springs Life is, as I already said, a periodical magazine.  One just puts the name in, and there it is, right at the very top of the results list when I did it.  It even has back issues available.  This is a very poor show indeed; as is your bad faith assumption that just because  isn't proficient at wikitext markup and using citation templates, the citations that xe supplied when you asked must therefore be bogus with no need to make an effort to work out what they are citing.  It's not actually hard to work out what Who's Who in American Art, TV Guide, and Palm Springs Life are.  Nor is it hard to work out, contrary to the claims that there is "no way to verify plain text" and that you "just cannot" work out the meaning, what "Palm Springs Life February 2007" could possibly mean, given the clear existence of a monthly magazine named Palm Springs Life that's a doddle to discover with the tool that you say you are using. Uncle G (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to be kidding me. Wow, "Palm Springs Life" got you google results? No kidding. Now try finding "James C. Mulligan" in Palm Springs Life. The same with "TV Guide." For the record, I didn't google just "TV Guide". My guess is that it is a notable publication. That being said, I can't find anything that really links James C. Mulligan to TV Guide. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Further, are we to trust any article that just throws the text "TV Guide, some random date" as a reference? It seems like this is kryptonite to all things WP:A7! Congrats on finding the loophole! Now anyone can have their own Wikipedia entry! Also, note the reply below that TV Guide is weekly, so having a "monthly" citation for it is absurd. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment. "TV Guide January 2005" is an insufficient citation because TV Guide is a weekly publication. Whoever has access to the source in question needs to narrow down which of the four or five issues published that month is being referred to (and it would be helpful to identify the specific article and page, too). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Puffery, pretty clearly written by the subject of the article. Carrite (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - complete puffery, vanityspam, etc. There is nothing notable or even verifiable that he's done in his whole life. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - in its present form, this article is pure, unadulterated WP:VSCA with hokum, unverified references tossed in to provide 'credibility'. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (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.