Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mark McMillan

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. Waggers (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Mark McMillan[edit]

(was an incomplete afd)Non-ntable and notability not asserted? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Over a year ago, when I was still new to Wikipedia, I created this article on a musician that performed at my school and was discussed in several of my classes when I noticed that there was not an article on him. At the time, I wasn't really aware of the notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles, and I'll admit that this article probably needs to be deleted. If others here agree that the article should be deleted, I certainly won't object. —MearsMan ^talk 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 26,200 ghits (viewable here). I looked at about thirty; none are clearly WP:RS, but some may be. Ma^t_chups 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) Google Archive shows only three brief "play listings" from 2003 in the Charlotte Observer, and if that's all the coverage he got in his home paper... But they do mention that he was affiliated with MorningStar Ministries, so a redirect is possible. Currently, MorningStar Ministries redirects to Heritage International Ministries and Morningstar Ministries redirects to Rick Joyner. On the other hand, the article dates McMillan's career to 2005, and describes him as indie rock. His own website says he left in 2006 to start Worship Arts Revival. Hmm... --Groggy Dice T | C 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the WP article provides only trivial coverage or that RS's provide only trivial coverage? Ma^t_chups 19:34, 14 July 2008 (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.