Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce M. Macfarlane

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. A Train^talk 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce M. Macfarlane

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

Minor tv personality who doesn't meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet either WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable mayor and TV anchorman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Illinois legislature is filled with notable people who gave the topic attention, but I'm having trouble finding sources on Google. [This page provides something he did as mayor. WGN is a 50,000 watt radio station, which at night can be heard over most of the populated US and I assume Canada. WGN-TV went on the air in 1948, so was one of the earliest broadcasters. His father was associated with the Tribune newspaper. It seems likely that someone with access to Chicago newspaper archives would have a chance of finding more on this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor being a single-market local TV or radio personality is an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an article that's this weakly sourced. And saying that improved sourcing might be possible is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept, either — somebody needs to show the evidence that enough sourcing to get him over GNG does exist, preferably by actually improving the article but at least by showing some hard results from an actual search of Chicago newspaper archives in this discussion, and it is not enough to just theorize that maybe better sources might exist. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources? If so, what did you find? Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article kept, then you're the one whose job it is to find enough sources to get it kept. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2018 (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.