Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Blake (broadcaster)


 * 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.

Jon Blake (broadcaster)
The result was   Delete and Redirect to 5AA.In my judgment, notability has been neither established nor verified by reliable, non-trivial sources. While I eschew the idea of a subject dictating the terms or presence of an article, there is sufficient precident for such. Wisdom suggests that we are better off without this article at least until notability can be verified. JodyBtalk 22:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


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

I am nominating this stub on the grounds that he isn't notable enough for us to insist on inclusion in this encyclopedia. He's a radio broadcaster for a commercial talkback radio station in Adelaide (called 5AA, I believe). I can find no other claim to fame. No real assertion of notability.

As a contributing factor (and this is NOT the grounds for deletion), someone claiming to be the subject has repeatedly blanked the article objecting to its inclusion. The article at that point was POV and badly sourced and has now been stubbed and protected by admins under WP:BLP. The subject's request is NOT a reason to delete. However, the low-notability of this article, and the fact it has been in a poor state since creation rather means that it is unlikely to be well-maintained going forward, which is rather tough on the subject who will have to monitor it personally for any crap added. Not a reason to delete according to policy, but with a marginal at best article, something you may wish to consider. Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with courtesy per subject request. Borderline notability, subpar sourcing.  The encyclopedia gains little by forcing such things upon living subjects who don't want them.  See precedents at Articles for deletion/Rand Fishkin, Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd), Articles for deletion/Ginger Jolie.  Durova Charge! 23:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the page has only two incoming links from other articles. Durova Charge! 23:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that not all precedents support deletion, for instance, Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant). Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Also here is two more precedents: Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams and Articles for deletion/Calpernia Addams (2nd nomination). -MBK004 04:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if we sow more precedents such as those, eventually we'll reap another Daniel Brandt. It's an ill harvest that isn't worth the trouble.  Durova Charge! 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think we should have an article on Daniel Brandt. -Nard 20:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss that separately; you might be surprised. :) Durova Charge! 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree. This individual is a notable individual.  He is on the largest talk radio station in the fifth largest city in Australia... clearly a public figure.  He also won an Australian Comercial Radio Award.  Being an award winning personality on a major radio station in a major city is more than enough notability to keep.  Despite his personal desires, the laws underwhihc Wikipedia is governed grants us Freedom of the Press.  If he didn't want publicity, he shouldn't have taken a job that would make him a public figure.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Press? The press doesn't keep undermaintained, undersourced articles and allow any anonymous person to write them, and then block the subject for "vandalism" when they object. Pleeeeese - just because the law allows us to behave horribly does not mean we need to.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Balloonman. We do not delete biographical articles simply because the subjects don't like it; this is an an encyclopedia, not some two-bit vanity publishing version of Who's Who. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I am agreeing with Balloonman here as well. This individual is notable and a public figure. The article is not libelous. This article should not be deleted. Captain   panda  23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per borderline notability and the concerns mentioned above by, and precedent noted in above comment by . Cirt (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't have the reliable secondary sources we need to write a biography. Tom Harrison Talk 23:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. -Nard 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete The article has no real sources nor had even any before being trimmed. The section that the subject seems to object to did not have a source directly naming him as the radio personality in question and should not be included without very reliable sources. Should there be adequate WP:RS to have an article on the man, then it should be strictly trimmed to what's sourced as per WP:BLP. I wouldn't mind having a non-controversial stub in this instance but the fact that the subject (supposedly) wishes it gone leans me towards delete. Double Blue  (Talk) 00:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We might also just redirect it to 5AA, which is a slightly ugly article that could use work. Double Blue  (Talk) 00:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I went looking for sources by which this article could be expanded, and there basically aren't any that I can find. The defining characteristic of notability is the presence of coverage in external sources, and this appears to fail.  Dragons flight (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Balloonman. The person is a significant enough public figure. He has gained a major award. We don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like it; they accept that by being in a position that puts them into the public spotlight, they accept everything that comes with that position, including all the bad press and criticism. This article therefore meets WP:PEOPLE in that quote: The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. According to the WP:PEOPLE guidelines, if the article meets one of the following criteria, it may stay. ThePointblank (talk) 00:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the WP:BIO guidelines, the subject is notable enough that we can suspect there are adequate Reliable sources to write a Verifiable, NPOV, NOR article. It does not necessarily mean the article should stay; just that we shouldn't assume that reliable sources are not available and speedy delete. Double Blue  (Talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The award is the only thing that is referenced in there. Can anyone back up the rest of the article with references too? If the subject objects, we need to hold the article to a higher quality standard if we want to include it. No 3 months to find sources, it has to be speedy (as in found fast, not speedy deletion). - Mgm|(talk) 00:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; I am opposed by principle to article subjects deciding whether they should have an article or not. If the person meets our current notability requirements, then an article is warranted (and it appears that this person is, indeed, notable enough for an article).  We may someday want to reposition the "notability bar", as it were, but wherever we place it it must be applied uniformly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability requires reliable sources discussing him. Can you identify a few?  There is hardly anything to go on as far as I can tell.  So regardless of him having won a relatively minor award (one of 80 awarded that year, and one of three awarded that year in that same category), I'd say he still fails notability due to the lack of meaningful coverage in secondary sources.  Dragons flight (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to 5AA per Keith Conlon.  Grsz  11   →Review!  00:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. So the whole idea is that he won a major award, so he gets into Wikipedia whether he likes it or not? Well, I don't know how major an award it is, because in an hour of searching, I could only find three independent news articles about the entire award program, and two of them didn't mention him. The third, here, garnered him three sentences in the third blurb of the catch-all celebrity column of his local newspaper. He is not the anchor of the broadcast, he's the "colour man".  I mean, I'm sure he's funny as all get-out, and I have to admire the fact that he won for a comedy routine based on International Talk Like a Pirate Day, but still...  Risker (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable, not a single reference to him that meets WP:RS. Keeping on the basis of a minor award is absurd. ~ priyanath talk 01:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Bidgee (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Balloonman. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  01:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blake's ACRA Award satisfies WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Durova. Privatemusings (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the above delete comments. Borderline bios should always be removed if the subject requests. We are reasonable people - let's not kick up a fuss over this. We have millions of articles; this one will not be missed. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. How do you turn this on, immediately above, has this exactly right. The "notability" was extremely marginal to begin with. Deor (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Marginal BLP. Non-public figure.  Apparently subject requested.  He meets WP:BIO barely but no biographical sketch has been made of him so we can't really make a proper article. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Risker and Doc_g. Avruch  T 02:13, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * delete I have consistently advocated ignoring the desires of the subject about whether to have an article. But unless the station has national reach, or there are sufficient published comments about his show outside the area, I don't think he's notable. I consider an award for a single segment like this minor.--it was not for his show in general.DGG (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, but only on notability grounds, and explicitly not because of subject request. Works for a notable station, but one award of unclear importance would not make the subject notable.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete the one award does not make him notable, nor does the fact he work for a radio station. Notability should reflect his individual contribution. Michellecrisp (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: His "individual contribution" has been recognised by an national industry-wide award. How is this not notable? How many awards would he need to win, in your opinion, for him to be considered notable? I'm not aware of a WP threshold for such things. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to read your notability policy, which has been linked to several times, and I will link to again Notability and Notability (people). It doesn't matter how many awards this guy has one, even if he had won 5 Oscars and 5 Nobel Prizes he still wouldn't be notable if there was no substanial coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. Generally speaking, people who have won major awards do get coverage of reliable secondary sources but it's not always the case, and it's not even clear if the award is really that major Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Nil Einne. The key aspect of proving notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources which I believe Jon Blake fails. Jon Blake rates hardly a mention in actual articles in a Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 *  Delete Strong delete per Risker. If the ACRA appeared to be the equivalent of the Marconi Award here in the States, this would be a no-brainer keep.  But that doesn't appear to be the case ... the ceremony doesn't seem to get much coverage in the mainstream press.  I'm willing to change my !vote if I'm wrong on this, though. Blueboy96 04:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that a strong delete, as not even 5AA's Website mentions this award. If the station didn't think this award was big enough to tout in its promotions, it's definitely not a notable award. Blueboy96 20:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Durova, DGG and Michellecrisp have said which I don't really need to repeat in here. Australian Commercial Radio Awards rarely gets national media coverage. Only coverage it gets is on the radio stations who are apart of the host of the awards which is Commercial Radio Australia and sometimes local newspapers but I don't see how this person is notable for Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a notable and public figure. People have heard of him. On principal keep it, because public figures do not get to decide if there is an article about them on wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if people have heard of him. A lot of people have heard of Corey Worthington and Corey Delaney and a whole load of other people who we don't and shouldn't have articles on. The threshold on wikipedia is always notability as defined by the guidelines, not 'people have heard of him' which is an incredibly POOR way to decide if we should have an article (how many people have to have heard of someone to be notable? how do we decide how many people have heard of someone?)
 * Comment: The threshold for inclusion in WP is WP:V, not WP:NOTE. The former is a policy. The latter is merely a guideline. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep is a notable individual.  And part of historic law case   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fu.Kings.Lut (talk • contribs) 11:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that someone was involved in a 'historic' case doesn't make them notable. You need coverage of the person in reliable secondary sources. As it stands, we don't even seem to have an article on the case nor can I find substanial mention of the case so I fail to see how you can even claim the case is 'historic'. (And as I've said, if you could prove the case was 'historic' that would solely be an argument for keeping an article on the case not the persons involved)Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The account that gives the 'keep' here has very few edits and appears to be trolling the page. Note the edit summary on prior edit.  Indeffed for username violation.  Durova Charge! 17:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete there appears to be dispute whether the award he won is a major award. Be that as it may, it doesn't matter. The guidelines on notability are quite explicity on this. The only criteria for notability is substanial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Someone who has won a major award is usually covered in reliable secondary sources hence it's sometimes a convient shortcut to look at what a person has done to decide in the absence of other evidence. But Dragon flight has looked for coverage of this guy and found none. Particularly given the dispute of how major the award is, it is the responsibility of those who claim he is notable to prove it. Not by showing how many awards he's won or by showing how many people have heard of him or whatever legal cases he has been involved in, as none of these prove his notability; but by showing coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article means nothing to us (seriously very low interest etc) but could have unpleasant consequences for the subject. We are not here to mess with other peoples lives. — Realist  2  13:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete notability marginal at best, the award doesn't seem significant enough by itself to give notability, especially when the subject requests deletion. Hut 8.5 14:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete marginal notability, subject expresses a preference for not having an article, past issues. I think we are better off without this one. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as I've never heard of this individual before. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are not very many sources - 397 Google results for "Jon Blake" + Adelaide.  By comparison, that is not much more than the number of internet pages that mention me, but I'm definitely not notable.  The 397 google results are mainly non-reliable sources.  There simply isn't much to go on to make a proper biography on Wikipedia, so in this case, I think we are better off without this article. --Aude (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Low enc, we gain nothing by keeping the article except potential distress for the subject in question. smooth0707  (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There had been another claim of notability (now deleted from the article with a vague IMO edit-summary, which concerned me): being involved in a court case relating to his broadcasting work...was covered in some major publications, one of which was cited in the article. Although the cite mentioned the radio program, it didn't mention Blake by name (although it did mention some co-hosts). Without something to tie Blake himself to this case, I don't think it should be included nor be used to support notability. DMacks (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete ASAP as a courtesy to the subject. -- IRP ☎ 18:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. There is an assertion of notability, but it is unclear whether the award is enough to meet notability guidelines. — Snigbrook  21:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: The idea that we must keep an article, regardless of the subject's feelings does not sit well with me. If we adhere to all if/then guidelines, we, as contributors, lose control over issues like this. Lawshoot! 01:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, because it's the decent thing to do in the case of a very marginally notable individual. Wikipedia will be just fine without an article on this guy -- it's not like he's George Bush (or Kevin Rudd). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I want to make it absolutely clear that courtesy to the subject isn't a factor at all for me, and I don't think that kind of subjective moral nonsense has any place here, the subject really has no claim to notability; being involved in a single court case does not confer that, unless it was an especially notable court case, which this was not.  Celarnor Talk to me  15:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Risker and How do you turn this on. Notability is in question, sources are shaky, award is not major and in cases such as these, where it's borderline and where the subject of the article does not want a biography on Wikipedia, we should respect that and remove it. لenna  vecia  15:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This appears to be a case of Blake wanting to suppress a South Australian Supreme Court judgement that he defamed a cafe owner:
 * JUDGE DAVID TAYLOR offered the comment about breakfast broadcaster 'KEEFY' (5AA radio comedian JON BLAKE): "The only part of the program that makes sense is the initial giving of the temperature." Judge Taylor spoke as he dismissed a defamation claim by cafe owner DOMINIC COSENZA against 5AA owner, Festival City Broadcasters. Cosenza - also known as 'The Flash Man' - runs a Hindley Street cafe. The Judge disagreed with Cosenza's claim; His Honour said the broadcast was 'a comic program of complete nonsense', according to MICHAEL OWEN-BROWN, reporting in Saturday's 'Tiser.
 * The matter was originally heard in the South Australian District Court. The judge hearing the case found that the broadcast wasn't defamatory, but Mr Cosenza appealed the decision in the South Australian Supreme Court, which overturned the ruling and found in his favour. ... Mr Cosenza's lawyer is Peter Hannon. He says the radio station overstepped a line when the breakfast program's fictional weather man, Keefy, went on a walkabout in Adelaide's Hindley Street, unaware of the existence of Flash Gelateria, an ice-cream shop and café, run by Dominic Cosenza.
 * It appears to have been a total accident that Blake made defamatory remarks from a total coincidence of fictional names used in the skit, but the court found that was irrelevant as damage was done by the mistake. Sounds like it could have been a notable ruling, but that needs some experienced in law sources. You won't find it in Google news I wouldn't have thought, it happened in 2000/2001. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've dropped a note at WP:LAW. MickMacNee (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, then I'm even more inclined to keep!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * weak, almost full keep Willing public figures (which he certainly is) should not get courtesy deletion, and I've seen no evidence that the individual in question claiming to be Blake is in fact Blake. I'm not however completely convinced that the individual meets WP:BIO. The Sunday Mail article combined with other coverage which is apparently primarily behind Pay Walls such as as an article in The Advertiser, and the award mentioned in the article seem to arguably meet that standard. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed... if this was a non-public figure, I would be more inclined to delete. As a public figure, he knowingly chose a field that opens himself up to coverage.  It might be different if we were talking about a college professor or a person whose notability derived from an isolated unwanted event.  Eg if "Joe the Plumber" had chosen not to embrace his notability and asked to be deleted, I'd be more inclined to honor the request.  But here we are talking about a notable personality on a notable radio station in Australia.  If it wasn't for his request, how many of the deletes above would disappear as there is sufficeint notability to warrant an article?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think he's so notable and there is plenty to say, then how about expanding the article to three or four times its current size? Dragons flight (talk) 02:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject is at best of borderline notability and given that the subject appears to want it gone, I for one am happy to accede to that request per Short Brigade Harvester Boris. I am not sure what relevance the court case cited by Mick MacNee has at all in this case. Of course the subject wants to supress the information in the article, that's the point of requesting a delete. There is zero evidence that the case is notable at all other than to someone wanting to have shot at the subject. The idea that working in broadcasting means that you forfeit any rights that other subjects have on wiki is on the face of it ludicruous. This isn't the Nine Network news anchor, but a very minor radio personality with an audience limited to the one city. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in finding legal specific sources as opposed to google the names, I have no way of knowing if this is a landmark ruling or was an important precedent or not. MickMacNee (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - and redirect to 5AA. Blake is just another radio announcer at a station with a moderate share of a strictly local audience. His notability I see as much under borderline - many other broadcasters (like Keith Conlon who's article is a redirect) are far more notable, in Conlon's case for his writing and broadcasting work outside of 5AA. Unlike his collegue Blake's not very widely active in the public eye outside of 5AA. Blake has almost zero news impact in Adelaide - beyond station publicity and gossip pages - Peripitus (Talk) 23:19, 4 November 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.