Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Jackson


 * 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. Wily D 15:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I can't see any notability here. A Google search lists Nick Jacksons that are clearly not this person - a boat equipment company and an artist instead of this broadcaster. The one English-language link is a trivial mention that says nearly nothing about him. Note: If deleted, the disambiguation page Nicholas Jackson should go to, since it would not link to any articles. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 17:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He gets a bit of press so might just be notable: brief review, articles on him in trade press, mentions and it might be worth checking local press. But at the same time I wouldn't be bothered if this was deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Trade presses are useful as sources, but never establish notability for anything - their purpose is to promote their industry and everyone working it. Mere mentions don't establish notability either. That leaves your first link, which at least is mostly about Jackson, but is short and says very little. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Trade presses ... never establish notability for anything" Care to offer any evidence for that rather sweeping claim? I frequently see trade press cited to help prove notability, e.g. Billboard in music discussions, Publishers Weekly and Library Journal in book discussions, Variety for films, Computer Weekly/InfoWorld/The Register in computing and IT, The Chronicle of Higher Education/Times Higher Education Supplement for academics, etc. Are you saying none of them are allowed in AfD?  There are big difference in trade magazines and they need to be assessed individually. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, as I had a different understanding of what "trade press" means than you did. I meant a magazine published, for example, by North American Broadcasters Association, which truly does exist just to promote broadcasting, as opposed to Radio Today, an independent magazine about radio. Two different things, and your trade press sources are the later, clearly. That said, the mentions are quite trivial, merely mentioning that he's changing jobs. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete if someone recognizable like Articles_for_deletion/Anand_Bhatt_(musician) doesn't qualify then this person DEFINITELY does not qualify as WP:NOTABLE Wikijustice2013 (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in every AfD. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248 have been blocked by Postdlf for sockpuppetry and retaliatory AfD postings.. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

 Sorry, but a promotional magazine is worthless as source or claim of notability, because it is always close to the subject. Delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (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.