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. The rationales for retention clearly outweigh the rationales for deletion here. –MuZemike 19:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McCusker[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been deleted twice as copyright violation and is mainly the work of WP:SPAs. It makes some assertion of notability but the sources are all linked with the subject. I suspect this is either autobiography or the work of a PR, in any case it lacks independent sources (and always has) and is written in the tone of an agent's biography. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage of the subject found nor any reviews of his work in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article did indeed lack reliable sources, but upon further research, there were many available. I've added four of them, and more can be added if needed, but this seems sufficient. I've also rewritten the wording and formatting, and removed the article tags. American Eagle (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have also added some more sources into the article. He appears to be a notable author and radio personality. Silver seren^C 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The four sources added are not really convincing. A student newspaper, a newsbank result with no content, a brief mention, and an article naming him as winner of a competition for tickets to a Spinal Tap contest. Surely these are not being claimed as multiple significant coverage in reliable sources?--Michig (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four? I added seven EL's. Silver seren^C 08:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources, several more external links, one of which duplicates a reference. None of those are really significant coverage in reliable sources as far as I can tell. --Michig (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb lists McCusker's credits as "miscellaneous crew", which is hardly compelling. I have an admitted bias against articles that appear to have been created or significantly influenced by conflict of interest users or single purpose accounts, but I still don't see enough here to merit keeping the article. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(a) Notability is established by reliable sources, not by what IMDb lists him as. (b) I have rewritten the article and removed all promotional language. Look at the sources and go by policy; not IMDb or your biases. American Eagle (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This only inclines me even further not to keep the article. First, I don't think most people being reasonable would think I based my decision solely on IMDb's listing. I merely stated one of many factors. I, along with most people, don't typically write out every single reason why an article should be deleted. Secondly, everyone has biases. I stated mine. I tried to reach a conclusion in spite of my bias, and you have acted as if I deliberately reached a conclusion in furtherance of bias, which is not correct interpretation of what I wrote. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you have still not listed any credible reasons for why this article should be deleted. Silver seren^C 00:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has four references, none of which singularly or collectively represent significant independent coverage. The introduction says he has written numerous books, plays, and musicals, but it appears that none of those are notable. Of the two notable productions he's tied to, the source for one of them (Radioworld) is an article in which he is mentioned one time, with about half of one sentence being dedicated to his achievements. He appears to be a minor player in creating some Christian-themed media. That's about it. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I vote we keep it. There are several sources for Paul and he's a very well-known writer.Keen Peach (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.