Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Lindquist (2nd nomination)

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. Per WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lindquist

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

Back for what I bellieve is the third AfD. Nominating again as I discovered that at least two of the refs that were used in previous versions were from sources connected to the article subject-- see talk page for details. With those removed, we have someone who is essentially:

a radio announced in Las Vegas who also does commercial voice over work
this person received a Nevada radio hall of fame award once
this person plays in a non-notable band.

Given the presence on the web of sources published by colleagues of the article subject, I would encourage deep skepticism. Does not meet WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone doing his job, but not receiving coverage required by WP:BIO to be encyclopedic. There are no reasons for considering his inclusion in "Nevada Broadcasters Association Hall of Fame" to be sufficient; the award doesn't seem to be very selective - each year over 20 or so people get it, and all it amounts to is seemingly an entry on a webpage that is there to honor employees who had worked in the broadcast industry for a minimum of twenty years. So in other words, if you work for 20 years in this industry, you get on the list. Nice, but nothing to to with being encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was most articulate! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NOTABILITY and under promotional pressure to boot. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notable per coverage. Aliciadewi (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that the sources are poor, although more importantly, so far as I can ascertain there are not enough sources out there for him to meet WP:GNG, and the state broadcasting award is insufficient to establish him as notable. I asked on the talk page for an admin to check whether this new version of the article is substantially the same as the one deleted after the second AfD; if the award was also present in that version, I suspect this could be speediable as a re-creation. If it is new, it does not appear to meet the appropriate specialized notability guideline. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nothing to indicate that the Nevada HoF is a notable honor. See also the related new article The Honorifics, Mr. Lindquist's band, created also by Aliciadewi. More of same promotional issues, with press releases as sources. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following an unsuccessful suggestion to speedy delete, I've prodded The Honorifics. HappyValleyEditor or Yngvadottir, this may be ripe for an AfD, as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've posted both pages at COIN........HappyValleyEditor (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there any reason why I should not close this speedily as G4? --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: Unfortunately, the rest of us can't see the version that was deleted after the previous AfD to assess whether it's substantially the same. (I raised that issue on the talk page.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only "source" that is in the current version that was not in the previous version is the archived link to the KLAV homepage, which is useless for establishing notability. Apart from that, I don't see anything that's really different (actually, the current version has less content than the deleted one) and I did check the version before other editors started slashing it. I am going to close this per WP:SNOW, no use wasting our time here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I remember the previous version of the page and the references were essentially the same. It wouldn't pass WP:GNG --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:24, 1 May 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.