Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay & Jack


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay & Jack
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nominated for lack of notability: only one reliable reference can be found, this one, and that is not enough to pass WP:N. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Jay and Jack are quoted in this article by Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly, and interviewed in detail in this article by the Associated Press. The latter source, combined with the Daily News article provided above, satisfies the notability requirements under WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Removal of the AfD template is appropriate at this time. Jrsightes (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only one source was found because a vandal deleted the other two sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelkirschner (talk • contribs) 11:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No. You added spam and press releases. I'm not talking about what I found in the article (which was nothing, besides a link to your blog) but what I found doing a good-faith search for real reliable sources. As for your "vandal" comment, I have no comment, but I've left you a message on your talk page regarding your repeated deletion of the AfD template. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, removal of the template is appropriate after an administrator determines whether the article is to be kept or not, thank you very much. Play by the rules, please. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are not one of the listed administrators of this site "thank you very much." Your bizarre, unilateral jihad against this particular article notwithstanding, I have read WP:N completely, and the references listed in this article more than adequately satisfy the requirements of that WP.
 * Thank you, User:Jrsightes. Next time, please sign your name (using four tildes), and mind your manners. I have not called you any names; I've only asked you to play by the rules. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has called you any names either. I am playing by the rules.  You are the one seeking to subvert the rules and tear down this article despite its conformity with the rules.  Throughout this debate, you have violated WP:AGF by baselessly accusing other editors of self-promotion, and referring to their good-faith contributions as "spam."  Jrsightes (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I now find three credible references in this article, 2 of which are footnoted in the article iself. here, here and here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spork4beans (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Spork, it's nice to have a rational discussion; thank you for your contributions. However, I beg to differ: the first two sources only mention the subject briefly and don't discuss it in any way. Only the third link, to a brief interview with the two, can be called significant and in-depth. In all, in my opinion that does not add up to significant discussion in independent reliable sources. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've examined the references and most of them are quite unconnected to the topic; the few that aren't seem trivial.  There is no real notability here IMHO.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:13, 31 March 2010 (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.