Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirk McCullough

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 delete.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kirk McCullough

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kirk McCullough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable hunter/businessman. No meaningful in depth coverage, only small town papers/passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added several sources. These include two podcast, newspapers, Arkansas Supreme court increasing the sources to ten so far. I will continue filling it out as I go through sources.Just4kids (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Podcast appearances won't help toward notability, nor do court cases. Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough at least those sources back up the other news sources that have been cited, but 'A podcaster does not need to be notable to be reliable' And if multiple journalist are interviewing the subject whether they are multiple text news sources, or multiple podcast over years it points to reliable information. And in this case that reliable information points to the subject being notable within their subject.

I didn't say it was unreliable. I said it doesn't establish notability and it doesn't. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I see someone who re-invented the duck call and how duck hunters call their game with not only adding and changing the technology of the instrument but also honing the tune and pitch is notable. As well as building a reputation for doing so for 30 years is worthy of notation.Just4kids (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Just4kids: we do not base notability on accomplishments, we base it on coverage in independent media. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

References

• Delete I can't see why this hunting guide is notable, and the sources do not support notability either. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
• Keep As an hunting guide and inventor of a better duck call with multiple independent and reliable sources throughout the career that support notability. and this article meets WP:GNGJust4kids (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Only quality ref is [1], and I don't think it's good enough for WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2020 (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.