Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John P. McCormick


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator. Dravecky (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

John P. McCormick

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

Not notable. Fairly minor employee of the Chicago Tribune, whose website is the only source of information about him. The largest section is about the alleged effort of the governor to get him fired. Since this had no direct effect on him it should be at most a trivia item, if he was notable enough for an article that is. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete . Basically a WP:BLP1E case, where the only notability seems to come from McCormick being a figure in the Rod Blaojevich scandal. There is a great deal of coverage at the moment but it all appears to be only in the context of the Blagojevich scandal. An alldates googlenews search (which, as I understand it excludes the last 30 days), gives 113 hits but all of them appear to be false positives. So there does not appear to be significant coverage of him pre-Blagojevich scandal. Perhaps could be redirected to Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases, for which this article is something of a content fork. Nsk92 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Neutral for the moment in view of the source produced by Cbl62. Nsk92 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep. He also got a 2003 Scripps award. Together with the award mentioned in Cbl62's post below, that is enough to establish pre-Blagojevich notability. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that the current content has some issues is not a reason to delete the article.  It's a reason to improve the article.  It is also a reason not to feature it on the main page in a DYK nomination.  But the article should not be deleted.  As for the assertion that McCormick is not notable, that seems contrary to the fact that a search for John McCormick and the Chicago Tribune on google pulls 83,600 hits.  See, e.g., 2003 discussing McCormick as an example of the Best Newspaper Writing .  He was Newsweek's Midwest correspondent for 18 years and is a notable reporter/editor.  In my opinion, notability is clear.  Improve the article, yes.  But it should not be deleted. Cbl62 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but a plain google search like the one you cited is not a convincing proof of notability. If you can find sufficient specific examples of significant coverage of McCormick (rather than articles by him) by independent sources predating the Blagojevich scandal, I would certainly change my mind. But for now it does look like a WP:BLP1E case to me. Nsk92 (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have an unduly narrow view of notability. Did you look at the article I cited above? Cbl62 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, I missed it, my bad. Changing to neutral for the moment. Nsk92 (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He also won the American Society of Newspaper Editors 2002 Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing, for his editorials on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Afghanistan War, the "Renaissance of Black Chicago", and plans for a new football stadium in Chicago.


 * Keep. I agree with User:Cbl62, and in fact, I just added more content (and sources) in a good-faith effort to improve this article.  McCormick is plenty notable and was notable well before the Blagojevich scandal.  The issue with people whose careers largely predate the World Wide Web is that much of their most notable work is not easily searchable online.  In my view, WP:BLP1E applies more to people balancing hot dogs on their noses, not longtime correspondents for major newsweekly magazines (who then write editorials for one of the nation's most influential newspapers).  I agree with Cbl62 that notability is clear, and that the article could stand to be improved even more -- what I created with this article was a starting point, not a final work.  Jarvishunt (talk)  19 December 2008


 * Keep and expand. The BLP guideline was never intended to be used when the person in question was part of a major news story of general public interest, more than tabloid value, and more than temporary significance. It contradicts the general idea of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cbl62. Icewedge (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks guys. The article is now much improved. I think the section on the controversy should be reduced even more. I withdraw the nomination. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:05, 19 December 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.