Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Savage (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--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Mike Savage (radio personality)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable readio announcer. References and timeline puffed up to make this person look notable-- when in fact they are not. Article has obvious COI edits by two user names very similar to subject. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary coverage. Just primary information that he's had various jobs. (Also not to be confused with the notable Michael Savage.) Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - not because of COI, but because fails to meet or plausibly assert our minimum notability standards. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:BIO Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. While hosting a nationally syndicated radio show would be sufficient notability if the article were sourced properly, it's not a freebie that entitles him to keep a poorly sourced article just because he exists. (Frex, just because a show is available on the syndication market doesn't necessarily mean any significant number of radio stations have actually picked it up — so the presence or absence of reliable source coverage about him and the show is what would constitute the difference between keeping this and deleting it.) Exactly none of the sourcing here is acceptable, however: the one thing that might actually qualify him for inclusion is sourced only to its own self-published website about itself, while the independent sources are all mere blurbs, covering him in purely local contexts that confer no notability at all. In other words, nothing here is substantive enough, or sourced well enough, to get him over our inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  06:37, 28 April 2016 (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.