Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. J. Wright


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

J. J. Wright

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This biography of a living person lacks any reliable sources and reads like an advertisement. I also have questions about the subject's notability, specifically whether or not it meets point #1 on WP:ENTERTAINER. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * Weak keep based solely on the length of time spent as a personality in one market, in this case a market among the top ten largest in the United States. Cleanup work, as well as references, is needed, but the subject may be notable enough for an article.  --Winger84 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment The point that you've referenced above would not be relevant for discussion, in this instance, since this is a radio personality, not a TV personality.  To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia does not have an established "standard" for radio personalities (but I am working on a set of criteria, which I will present for comment soon).  --Winger84 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that there is no guideline for radio personalities, but WP:ENTERTAINER can still be used as a jumpoff point for determining notability for non-TV people. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is why the yellow tag was on.-- Freewayguy What's up? 23:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  23:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete he fails the general notability criteria and has not been covered in reliable 3rd party sources in a non-trivial manner in order to cover verifiability etc. Not to mention the "C.V."-ishness of the article itself and the total lack of referencing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject has been the focus of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources (like this one: ) and has enjoyed a notable career in a major US media market. The article is now at least partially properly referenced. It could use a rewrite and a few more references but those are issues for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see how what is added is significant coverage but, I'm willing to weaken my original opinion. BTW what is "This is why the yellow tag was on" supposed to mean? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 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.