Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McMullen (broadcaster)


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John McMullen (broadcaster)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to establish the notability of this broadcaster. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of LGBT related deletions. SSBohio 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —SSBohio 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says that John McMullen won a GLAAD Media Award, itself an uncontroversial assertion; Such an assertion can be sourced to the subject's own biography. In this case, however, the assertion is also sourced to GLAAD, the organization giving the award. The article asserts that McMullen was covered in an article in The Advocate. That is backed up by both McMullen & by a citation to a copy of the article. Or are you challenging those sources, as well? What motivates your animus toward this biographical subject that you would challenge all these sourced statements? --SSBohio 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per extensive prior discussion at its talk page. He's notable.  The article explains his notability, which exists as a quality distinct from that of its sources.  Would the article be better with more sources?  Of course!  But, that is a call to write a better article, not to delete what's already here.  It's a stub: improve it, don't delete it.  --SSBohio 19:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability is not established via a discussion on the article's talk page, it's established with verifiable 3rd party references of which this article has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I say that the talk page discussion established notability? No, I didn't.  I'm not going to refute straw man arguments.  --SSBohio 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Article sourcing has been improved. The information was trivially easy to find.  We're here to write an encyclopedia, not delete one, sofixit.  --SSBohio 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, it's the responsibility of the editor who adds the information to properly source it. Others are always welcome to improve the articles but any unsourced information can be removed.  This is especially true of biographies.  I chose the AFD route instead since there were no references.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember, that blaming problems on a previous editor does not provide you with blanket absolution for excising what could be fixed. The sourcing I added took me a few minutes' Googling to find.  Sofixit, already.  It makes me heartsick that fixable issues are used to excuse deletionist ideology.  Just because it's easier to destroy than to create doesn't make destruction a beneficial activity.  If you spent as much time improving the batch of articles you nominated yestedrday as you've spent arguing for their destruction, we'd have a better encyclopedia.  That is the goal of this project.  If, in your opinion, WP:BURDEN stands in the way of your improving the encyclopedia, then you should ignore it.  It's no excuse.  --SSBohio 13:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominator may not be aware of Guide to deletion, which states: Before nominating an article for AFD... first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself... You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 14:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Sirius OutQ. Mandsford (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How would that cover his prior radio work? --SSBohio 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment all those references to 'JohnMcmullen.com' are primary sources. Aren't there references to those awards and other items available somewhere other than the Mullen's website?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article asserts notability via his media coverage and award-winning work. This notability is, in part, sourced to the subject of the biography.  Ant that's your issue with it?  Some items have, indeed, been multiply sourced, despite your claim that they have not.
 * Ssbohio, you are being overly aggressive, there is no need for assumptions of bad faith. Also, you could take on board some of the constructive criticism, and in future ensure that articles, especially biographies of living persons, have adequate third party sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made no assumption of bad faith; I question the nominator's judgment in this matter and his/her interpretation of WP:N, not the he/she acted in good faith.  For that matter, ascribing aggeression to me could be an assumption of bad faith, as well.  WP:BLP seems to accept self-published sources for uncontroversial claims, as does WP:RS.  Even leaving all of that aside, improving the article's references was a trivial exercise for me, and, I suspect, for you, as well.  What's wrong with expecting someone who argues for deleting an article to at least give passing attention to fixing its problems instead?  Mzoli's was improved rather than deleted, but it shouldn't take Jimbo Wales to make that happen.  We've given carte blanche to deletionism for far too long without expecting better from its advocates.  --SSBohio 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Theres nothing wrong with it, it just needs cleanup. Smuckers It has to be good 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up - there is just enough overall coverage. Agree with Rtphokie's comments; editors creating biographies of living persons should include third-party sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (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.