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. Seems like the consensus indicates that references provided in the article don't contain enough to establish notability. Also WP:FRANKENSTEIN concerns exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCullough[edit]

Kevin 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)

Deleted in 2007 however it would imaginably not be the same as now thus renominating, my searches are not finding anything actually substantial and the article itself also mirrors this. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough sources to show he is an impactful journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no strong feelings on this one, but looking at the old AfD and the current text, I'm uncertain they're even for the same person. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There do seem to be at least 2 journalists conflated here, one has recently retired from a career as a news anchor in upstate New York [1]. The other appears to be a mid-career journalist at CNBC [2] I have no idea who the journalist in that old AFD was, but searching news archives on this name is tough, it's an extremely common name, there's a prominent Canadian attorney, a guy whose house got hit by a flood in Flroida, another who gets picked up for drunk-and-disorderly, a high school track star, and multiple respectable men in Ireland. There is also, however, an internet newscaster, here's a 2003 news story on him"Salem Communications announced the relocation of Kevin McCullough from WYLL AM1160 in Chicago to be on air in New York, Monday through Friday... WMCA 570AM... The mission of "Kevin McCullough Live from New York" is to be a daily intersection of news and current events through the dialogue of faith, conscience, and country. Along with being a radio talk show host, Kevin McCullough is a syndicated columnist, and is a past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards." There's more, but I was using a password protected archive (Proquest) Thing is, this article seems to have conflated the first 2 journalists. This is going to require more time than I have right now.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a micro-stub of an article on a non-notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject has enough references to be notable for a stub article, full disclosure I am also the editor who created this article, vote keep. Neptune's Trident (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - None of what's been listed is actually convincing for his own convincing and notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I still don't see sources suggesting individual notability. Yes, the subject is an anchor for a TV channel, but many are and thus he is not necessarily worthy of note. Both the sources and the content in the article are not substantial to sustain an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2016 (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.