Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Dukes (radio personality) (3rd 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 Keep   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chad Dukes (radio personality)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Relisting this AFD for this non notable DJ. This article lacks reliable sources. The seemingly reliable ones (Baltimore Sun and Washington Post) are about the show which replaced Dukes show when it left Baltimore, not Dukes or his show. The Big O and Dukes article was recently deleted due to copyright concerns and lack of notability, this article should be deleted as well. Rtphokie (talk) 22:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —Rtphokie (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, my apologies for closing the last AfD. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable. I cant find any mention of this person in any news searches.  The football player yes, but not this DJ.--66.0.46.122 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment A Google News search for '"Chad Dukes" radio' turns up several articles about the subject, including the very first one in the search. In addition, there are sources cited in the article (like this ) even if your personal search was inconclusive. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Luk  suh  00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Subject has received direct in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources (like ), this is the 3rd AfD for this article in a month. Even ignoring the aborted 2nd AfD, there's no reason this should be up again so quickly. - Dravecky (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * delete not notable --70.147.248.118 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for making this "vote" your first edit in almost three months, anonymous editor. - Dravecky (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The purpose of the notability guidelines is to ensure we have enough verifiable information from reliable sources to write an article. The notability guideline for people states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." My search for truly independent sources found only the articles linked by Dravecky above, but I believe these do constitute sufficient source material to write an unbiased, verifiable article. Information from dependent sources, such as information from the radio stations' websites, then fill out the article even more. Dukes has worked at three different radio stations in two separate markets, and I suspect a search in local Washington, Baltimore, and Phoenix area libraries would turn up more independent sources. DHowell (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I haven't looked for any sources myself, and I don't need to. I find it extremely unlikely that the nominator couldn't find any, considering this is a host on WJFK, one of the largest FM radio stations in the United States. MrPrada (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment well that adds a lot to the discussion, now doesn't it. Largest station how?  Biggest building, widest coverage, largest audience?  None of these are true. Sources have been found but they are from extremely small newspapers and I'm having problems with their reliability.  If you've got some better sources, that would help this discussion.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subject satisfies the criteria suggested by WP:BIO guidlines.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.