Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Wallace (radio personality)


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Jack Wallace (radio personality)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Small town radio presenter. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Prod removed with claim of being syndicated but no indication of this in the article or on google. Difficult to search for due to other radio presenters with the same name. noq (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * delete absolutely fails WP:BIO. Only one primary source supplied . LibStar (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only thing approaching an independent source that I was able to find is this, which is clearly not enough. Not a comment about his ability in the job, but we don't have enough to write a reliable biography of him that meets our standards for articles on living people.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete - as my nomination. CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. A radio personality is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists, particularly if the article's only source is his program's own page on the website of his own employer. If the claims of syndication were reliably sourced to media coverage about him, then they'd count for something — but in 2017, every radio host who exists at all could claim syndication just on the basis of their radio station operating a web stream, so the mere claim of syndication cannot confer an exemption from having to source the article better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2017 (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.