Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaz McKay


 * 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) 06:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jaz McKay

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

A non-notable, autobiographical article by User:Jazmckay. Article was previously proposed for deletion, but the tag was removed by the creator without specifying a reason on the talk page. Probably not eligible for CSD, as article makes small claim of notability. Maethordaer (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unreferenced vanity article, notability not established. Fails WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   —WWGB (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I do not see any assertion of significance in the article. There are 20 Google news hits, but I do not see them as "significant media coverage." They are mere blurbs. They do not go into any detail about his life or work. Nothing that meets WP:BIO. Should this survive, it needs serious rewriting.  Dloh  cierekim  14:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No indication that this is anything else that just another DJ. Zero references.  Fails WP:BIO.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Given his career arc plus jobs outside of radio I think it's possible for this article to indicate notability but as written it fails to do so. The utter lack of references and unencyclopedic tone are also strongly negative factors.  (The COI is egregious but with rewriting it can we worked through.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:03, 24 October 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.