225:. The fact that the current content has some issues is not a reason to delete the article. It's a reason to improve the article. It is also a reason not to feature it on the main page in a DYK nomination. But the article should not be deleted. As for the assertion that McCormick is not notable, that seems contrary to the fact that a search for John McCormick and the Chicago Tribune on google pulls
310:. I agree with User:Cbl62, and in fact, I just added more content (and sources) in a good-faith effort to improve this article. McCormick is plenty notable and was notable well before the Blagojevich scandal. The issue with people whose careers largely predate the World Wide Web is that much of their most notable work is not easily searchable online. In my view,
314:
applies more to people balancing hot dogs on their noses, not longtime correspondents for major newsweekly magazines (who then write editorials for one of the nation's most influential newspapers). I agree with Cbl62 that notability is clear, and that the article could stand to be improved even more
248:
Sorry, but a plain google search like the one you cited is not a convincing proof of notability. If you can find sufficient specific examples of significant coverage of McCormick (rather than articles by him) by independent sources predating the
Blagojevich scandal, I would certainly change my mind.
128:
Not notable. Fairly minor employee of the
Chicago Tribune, whose website is the only source of information about him. The largest section is about the alleged effort of the governor to get him fired. Since this had no direct effect on him it should be at most a trivia item, if he was notable enough
153:
case, where the only notability seems to come from McCormick being a figure in the Rod
Blaojevich scandal. There is a great deal of coverage at the moment but it all appears to be only in the context of the Blagojevich scandal. An alldates googlenews search (which, as I understand it excludes the
331:
and expand. The BLP guideline was never intended to be used when the person in question was part of a major news story of general public interest, more than tabloid value, and more than temporary significance. It contradicts the general idea of
Knowledge being an
297:
He also won the
American Society of Newspaper Editors 2002 Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing, for his editorials on the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Afghanistan War, the "Renaissance of Black Chicago", and plans for a new football stadium in
226:
232:. He was Newsweek's Midwest correspondent for 18 years and is a notable reporter/editor. In my opinion, notability is clear. Improve the article, yes. But it should not be deleted.
387:
121:
439:
157:
but all of them appear to be false positives. So there does not appear to be significant coverage of him pre-Blagojevich scandal. Perhaps could be redirected to
413:
368:
Thanks guys. The article is now much improved. I think the section on the controversy should be reduced even more. I withdraw the nomination.
88:
83:
155:
92:
158:
75:
17:
204:. Together with the award mentioned in Cbl62's post below, that is enough to establish pre-Blagojevich notability.
470:
36:
469:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
454:
428:
402:
377:
360:
343:
290:
276:
262:
241:
213:
191:
170:
138:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
373:
134:
79:
320:
316:
267:
I think you have an unduly narrow view of notability. Did you look at the article I cited above?
356:
53:
450:
424:
398:
369:
130:
71:
63:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
230:
311:
286:
272:
258:
250:
237:
209:
187:
166:
150:
352:
339:
49:
229:. See, e.g., 2003 discussing McCormick as an example of the Best Newspaper Writing
446:
420:
394:
109:
202:
282:
268:
254:
233:
205:
183:
162:
315:-- what I created with this article was a starting point, not a final work.
334:
299:
281:
No, sorry, I missed it, my bad. Changing to neutral for the moment.
463:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
161:, for which this article is something of a content fork.
182:
for the moment in view of the source produced by Cbl62.
116:
105:
101:
97:
388:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
473:). No further edits should be made to this page.
440:list of Illinois-related deletion discussions
8:
414:list of News-related deletion discussions
438:: This debate has been included in the
412:: This debate has been included in the
386:: This debate has been included in the
7:
159:Rod Blagojevich federal fraud cases
201:. He also got a 2003 Scripps award
24:
249:But for now it does look like a
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
455:06:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
429:06:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
403:06:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
378:04:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
361:04:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
344:03:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
291:03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
277:03:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
263:03:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
242:03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
214:03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
192:03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
171:02:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
154:last 30 days), gives 113 hits
139:02:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
58:08:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
490:
466:Please do not modify it.
129:for an article that is.
32:Please do not modify it.
46:Withdrawn by nominator
323:) 19 December 2008
44:The result was
457:
443:
431:
417:
405:
391:
72:John P. McCormick
64:John P. McCormick
481:
468:
444:
434:
418:
408:
392:
382:
119:
113:
95:
34:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
480:
479:
478:
477:
471:deletion review
464:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
487:
485:
476:
475:
459:
458:
432:
406:
380:
363:
346:
325:
324:
304:
303:
302:
301:
295:
294:
293:
245:
244:
219:
218:
217:
216:
174:
173:
149:. Basically a
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
486:
474:
472:
467:
461:
460:
456:
452:
448:
441:
437:
433:
430:
426:
422:
415:
411:
407:
404:
400:
396:
389:
385:
381:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
345:
341:
337:
336:
332:encyclopedia.
330:
327:
326:
322:
318:
313:
309:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:
264:
260:
256:
252:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
224:
221:
220:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
196:
195:
194:
193:
189:
185:
181:
176:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
143:
142:
141:
140:
136:
132:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
465:
462:
435:
409:
383:
370:Steve Dufour
365:
348:
333:
328:
307:
253:case to me.
222:
198:
179:
177:
145:
144:
131:Steve Dufour
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
351:per Cbl62.
227:83,600 hits
317:Jarvishunt
197:Change to
178:Change to
447:• Gene93k
421:• Gene93k
395:• Gene93k
353:Icewedge
312:WP:BLP1E
298:Chicago.
251:WP:BLP1E
151:WP:BLP1E
122:View log
50:Dravecky
366:Comment
180:Neutral
89:protect
84:history
146:Delete
117:delete
93:delete
283:Nsk92
269:Cbl62
255:Nsk92
234:Cbl62
206:Nsk92
184:Nsk92
163:Nsk92
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
451:talk
436:Note
425:talk
410:Note
399:talk
384:Note
374:talk
357:talk
349:Keep
340:talk
329:Keep
321:talk
308:Keep
287:talk
273:talk
259:talk
238:talk
223:Keep
210:talk
199:Keep
188:talk
167:talk
135:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
445:--
442:.
419:--
416:.
393:--
390:.
335:DGG
453:)
427:)
401:)
376:)
359:)
342:)
289:)
275:)
261:)
240:)
212:)
190:)
169:)
137:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
449:(
423:(
397:(
372:(
355:(
338:(
319:(
285:(
271:(
257:(
236:(
208:(
186:(
165:(
133:(
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.