Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nard the Bard (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 1 November 2008 (→Jon Blake (broadcaster)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jon Blake (broadcaster)

Jon Blake (broadcaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I am nominating this stub on the grounds that he isn't notable enough for us to insist on inclusion in this encyclopedia. He's a radio broadcaster for a commercial talkback radio station in Adelaide (called 5AA, I believe). I can find no other claim to fame. No real assertion of notability.

As a contributing factor (and this is NOT the grounds for deletion), someone claiming to be the subject has repeatedly blanked the article objecting to its inclusion. The article at that point was POV and badly sourced and has now been stubbed and protected by admins under WP:BLP. The subject's request is NOT a reason to delete. However, the low-notability of this article, and the fact it has been in a poor state since creation rather means that it is unlikely to be well-maintained going forward, which is rather tough on the subject who will have to monitor it personally for any crap added. Not a reason to delete according to policy, but with a marginal at best article, something you may wish to consider. Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The article has no real sources nor had even any before being trimmed. The section that the subject seems to object to did not have a source directly naming him as the radio personality in question and should not be included without very reliable sources. Should there be adequate WP:RS to have an article on the man, then it should be strictly trimmed to what's sourced as per WP:BLP. I wouldn't mind having a non-controversial stub in this instance but the fact that the subject (supposedly) wishes it gone leans me towards delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We might also just redirect it to 5AA, which is a slightly ugly article that could use work. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I went looking for sources by which this article could be expanded, and there basically aren't any that I can find. The defining characteristic of notability is the presence of coverage in external sources, and this appears to fail. Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Balloonman. The person is a significant enough public figure. He has gained a major award. We don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like it; they accept that by being in a position that puts them into the public spotlight, they accept everything that comes with that position, including all the bad press and criticism. This article therefore meets WP:PEOPLE in that quote: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. According to the WP:PEOPLE guidelines, if the article meets one of the following criteria, it may stay. ThePointblank (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the WP:BIO guidelines, the subject is notable enough that we can suspect there are adequate Reliable sources to write a Verifiable, NPOV, NOR article. It does not necessarily mean the article should stay; just that we shouldn't assume that reliable sources are not available and speedy delete. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The award is the only thing that is referenced in there. Can anyone back up the rest of the article with references too? If the subject objects, we need to hold the article to a higher quality standard if we want to include it. No 3 months to find sources, it has to be speedy (as in found fast, not speedy deletion). - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Nil Einne. The key aspect of proving notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources which I believe Jon Blake fails. Jon Blake rates hardly a mention in actual articles in a Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Risker. If the ACRA appeared to be the equivalent of the Marconi Award here in the States, this would be a no-brainer keep. But that doesn't appear to be the case ... the ceremony doesn't seem to get much coverage in the mainstream press. I'm willing to change my !vote if I'm wrong on this, though. Blueboy96 04:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova, DGG and Michellecrisp have said which I don't really need to repeat in here. Australian Commercial Radio Awards rarely gets national media coverage. Only coverage it gets is on the radio stations who are apart of the host of the awards which is Commercial Radio Australia and sometimes local newspapers but I don't see how this person is notable for Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable and public figure. People have heard of him. On principal keep it, because public figures do not get to decide if there is an article about them on wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter if people have heard of him. A lot of people have heard of Corey Worthington and Corey Delaney and a whole load of other people who we don't and shouldn't have articles on. The threshold on wikipedia is always notability as defined by the guidelines, not 'people have heard of him' which is an incredibly POOR way to decide if we should have an article (how many people have to have heard of someone to be notable? how do we decide how many people have heard of someone?)
  • Keep is a notable individual. And part of historic law case [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fu.Kings.Lut (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that someone was involved in a 'historic' case doesn't make them notable. You need coverage of the person in reliable secondary sources. As it stands, we don't even seem to have an article on the case nor can I find substanial mention of the case so I fail to see how you can even claim the case is 'historic'. (And as I've said, if you could prove the case was 'historic' that would solely be an argument for keeping an article on the case not the persons involved)Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there appears to be dispute whether the award he won is a major award. Be that as it may, it doesn't matter. The guidelines on notability are quite explicity on this. The only criteria for notability is substanial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Someone who has won a major award is usually covered in reliable secondary sources hence it's sometimes a convient shortcut to look at what a person has done to decide in the absence of other evidence. But Dragon flight has looked for coverage of this guy and found none. Particularly given the dispute of how major the award is, it is the responsibility of those who claim he is notable to prove it. Not by showing how many awards he's won or by showing how many people have heard of him or whatever legal cases he has been involved in, as none of these prove his notability; but by showing coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article means nothing to us (seriously very low interest etc) but could have unpleasant consequences for the subject. We are not here to mess with other peoples lives. — Realist2 13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability marginal at best, the award doesn't seem significant enough by itself to give notability, especially when the subject requests deletion. Hut 8.5 14:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are not very many sources [3] - 397 Google results for "Jon Blake" + Adelaide. By comparison, that is not much more than the number of internet pages that mention me, but I'm definitely not notable. The 397 google results are mainly non-reliable sources. There simply isn't much to go on to make a proper biography on Wikipedia, so in this case, I think we are better off without this article. --Aude (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low enc, we gain nothing by keeping the article except potential distress for the subject in question. smooth0707 (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There had been another claim of notability (now deleted from the article with a vague IMO edit-summary, which concerned me): being involved in a court case relating to his broadcasting work...was covered in some major publications, one of which was cited in the article. Although the cite mentioned the radio program, it didn't mention Blake by name (although it did mention some co-hosts). Without something to tie Blake himself to this case, I don't think it should be included nor be used to support notability. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP as a courtesy to the subject. -- IRP ☎ 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jon_Blake_(broadcaster)&oldid=249056757"