Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck McCoy
=[[Chuck McCoy]]=
:{{la|Chuck McCoy}} – (
:({{Find sources|Chuck McCoy}})
Contested prod. The concern was that this gentleman falls short of general and BLP-specific notability guidelines. Jafeluv (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
:I don't think BLP is at issue here; he's clearly a public figure, having put himself out there as a media personality both on the radio and on the Internet. However, due to sharing a name with the Canadian radio executive, it may be tricky to find further sources. I'll see what I can do. Powers T 15:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete; minimally notable BLP with very little coverage. Subject has also requested deletion. --Errant (chat!) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Erk, say what? Powers T 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- The only two sources in the article are a) a bio from somewhere he works (no good for establishing notability) and b) an article that touches on him briefly and vaguely. All the other sources I looked at mostly met "a", plus a few "b"'s as well. --Errant (chat!) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I'm working on that. I meant "Subject has also requested deletion." -- where did you get that? Powers T 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a very good question. Is there an OTRS ticket number? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, #2011072110014608 Obviously we don't do "deletion on request". But on a marginal BLP, that the subject would like the article removed usually sways things (it's written into the policy somewhere, but I can't find it right now). --Errant (chat!) 08:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- It had been my impression that that provision was for non-public figures. An actual media personality wouldn't seem to qualify. Powers T 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think any BLP subject should be allowed to say his peace even if it would be given very little weight for an "A list celebrity". The problem has always been twofold. 1. How to we determine if some "red user"/IP editor who claims to be the subject really is the subject? 2. Even if they do contact OTRS there are privacy concerns that more often then not prevent the OTRS volunteer from telling us what exactly the subject's beef is. I recall one AFD where the nominator/OTRS guy did nothing but reference a ticket number which wasn't helpful because almost the entire debate was about the vague OTRS ticket with little discussion on the merits of the article or how it did or did not meet our inclusion guidelines. Fortunately that's not the issue here as Jafeluv has provided a policy based rationale for his nomination. Still, if this discussion does turn into a "coin flipper" then knowing what the subject's concerns are would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RS (one of the two sources is marginal, the other is just promotional, and I couldn't find anything else in a Google search). Richwales (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (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.