Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John M. Culkin

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. Fram 09:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John M. Culkin

John M. Culkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Suggesting to delete because the article does not assert notability about the subject through reliable, third party party publications. n.b. The external links at the bottom of the page are either links to irrelevant books on Amazon or to the subject's own affiliated sites (unifon.org) which presents a certain conflict of interest as well. Burntsauce 23:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable from the description of the career. Better sourcing would certainly help. DGG (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see where he meets WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  Ha! Change to keep Someone has added references and rewritten. Meets WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep or Delayed Delete. Give this one time. If Mr. Culkin did as much as this article attests, surely some independent sources could be found. Have the author/contributors been contacted? Keeper | 76 14:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Time healed all wounds here. Article is well written, concise, well sourced, and easily verifiable for accuracy. Subject passes notability IMO. Nice work. Keeper | 76 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• KeepDelete agree with Dlohcierekim, I dont see how he passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. cleanup works for me.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree, the article now has plenty of reliable sources to assert its own notability now. Xihr 23:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Weak delete. WP:BIO could be marginal, but with no reliable, third-party sources, currenly it fails to assert his notability as is required.Xihr 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Writer comment and query. 1) I am changing references to the original articles instead of making it easy to learn more about John Culkin. 2). Culkin's brother destroyed his estate; it takes some digging to uncover data; that doesn't make the man's legacy less vital, just harder to corroborate; most of this information came only from his obit in The New York Times, corrodorated by the article "The man who invented..." cited here, and the articles he wrote. 3) Maybe someone else should write this article. I feel that since a pornographic actor can be notable enough for a place in Wikipedia, per your "notable" guideline, then John M. Culkin certainly deserves a place. 4) Frank Maguire hired Culkin at Federal Express, later became his partner in Hearth Communications. Talk to him. You are correct to admit that John M. Culkin is notable enough to feature here, though you may not have been aware of his influence. I'll try to make this bio work for Wiki. Keep watching edits and commenting, but please be patient, this is spare time activity for me.

Keninyork 19:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to review our guideline for independent, verifiable sources. Talking to people and sources connected with the subject or family of the subject may not meet this. News paper articles go a long way. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - insufficient independent evidence of notability (not to say of the whole text itself). Mukadderat 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This guy was a serious researcher and had novel ideas. He recognized and supported the notion that TV was The Glass Teat. He was 10 times more educational than porno stars.--Mightyms 00:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep per DGG. As it currently stands, notability not established, although NYT obit suggests otherwise. --Crusio 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Unfortunately, being a serious researcher and a great idea man do not equate to notability. The hard part on pre-web topics is proving verifiability. On a personal preference note, I would just as soon all the porn star articles were not here. I agree, I'd much rather see an article about this subject than the porn stars. My hope on a personal level is that this article is kept. My personal preferences and values sometimes conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 11:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  You might want to share those thoughts over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability (people) V Notability (pornographic actors) criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mightyms (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. PBS calls him a "media education pioneer", and not only Variety, but the New York Times gives him an obituary. That's sufficiently notable for our purposes. However, I'm puzzled why people are bringing up porn stars. We also have articles about mass murderers and Pokemon characters, which I thought would be easier targets to take completely unrelated cheap shots at. :-( --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Contrary to claim of Burntsauce above, the article does "assert notability"; Burntsauce does not seem to understand what that means. The only issue here is whether the assertions of notability can be backed up with verifiable sources. If they are not, that is not a good reason for immediate deletion. It is a good reason to add a {{unreferenced}} or {{Unreliablesources}} template to the article. That is what Burntsauce should have done, in my opinion. The article could then have been proposed for deletion if the necessary references were not added in a timely fashion. -- Dominus 20:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dominus, I don't see why it's necessary for you to question Burntsauce's "understanding" of policy/guidelines. Really off topic. Also, the nomination for deletion came well before the reliable sources. The sources have been added since Burntsauce's posts and before yours, and two votes were changed from weak keep or delete, to keep (including my own) because of the addition of the sources. If you have a problem with Burntsauce's knowledge of WP policy, take it to his discussion page please. This has otherwise been a notably civil discussion. Keeper | 76 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be a significant figure in the development of media studies, and the Variety obit and interview provide the necessary in-depth reliable sources. —David Eppstein 02:47, 3 October 2007 (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.