Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Jett


 * 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 no consensus. If the sources noted below don't come through, then another AfD might be appropriate. However, this debate does not yield a consensus to keep.  Daniel  09:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Joey Jett

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability was present. Still, Delete, given lack of reliable sources and COI concerns (COI concerns were admitted at the linked DRV.) Xoloz 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Week keep on condition that the article is cleaned up and notability asserted. If sources do exist then it shouldn't be too hard to insert two of them. I see no BLP problems and we don't delete articles because they require cleanup or are stubs. Also, COI is not in itself a reson for deletion when the article is otherwise salvageable. MartinDK 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up. Even stubs should be held to some standard; to me, this one falls short of it.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no RS's. Piperdown 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep based on hits at google news archive. There are definitely articles there which establish notability Corpx 17:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Strange, I don't see anything in those seven hits especially notable about Joey Jett, but I did think there was some merit to the nine you found for the Oakley Lehman AfD, which you said was only trivial information. Could you give more detail please?  Big Nate 37 (T) 17:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first article from the washington post is solely about this kid, counting for "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" from WP:BIO.  Here's another article about this person   Corpx 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, nice work. In that case, I don't think this article should be deleted, though my original sentiment that it should not exist in its current state remains.  Big Nate 37 (T) 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep on the basis of what has now been foundDGG (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:34, 8 July 2007 (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.