Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Jacobs (2nd nomination)

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 keep. John254 00:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Jacobs

Procedural listing based on this DRV. Reliable sources were purported to be present in the first AfD, but the editor declined to provide them. A non-independent reference was provided in the course of the DRV, which also raised the fact that the subject is a national radio broadcaster—not merely a local one—as was asserted in the AfD. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator unless evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources is demonstrated. It should not have been re-listed without this evidence IMO. Vquex (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Keep as sources have been presented. However, the article does need to cite them. Vquex (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Is there a criteria for this? Is having your own nationally syndicated show notable enough? Im just wondering. I brought this to DRV, mainly because IMO everyone in the last AFD didn't really notice that he was a national host, and not just a local one. But anyways the sources: Article stating hes a Fox Sports Radio host:[1]. Primary source showing hes a Fox Sports host:[2]. An affiliating showing in show in the schedule:[3]. This is probably not enough to be notable, I assumbed being a national host would be enough. Since it appears that you need more than that, it makes sense for this to be deleted -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coasttocoast's argument does not make sense to me, it is in fact rationale to keep. Nationally syndicated hosts for FOX are notable. As stated in the first AfD, there are non-trival second and third party sources which verify notability. The reason it ended up being deleted is because no one wanted to look them up, which got it overturned at DRV. In any case, they were not hard to find, as there are hundreds of non-trivial and trivial articles covering Jacob's career such as Mediaweek [4], Fort Worth Star-Telegram [5], New York Times [6], The Arizona Republic [7], St. Louis Post-Dispatch[8], San Antonio Business Journal [9], Phoenix News-Times [10], Fort Wort Star-Telegram [11], New York DAily News [12], etc., so he is clearly notable. MrPrada (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote, I just wasn't sure is being a national radio host for Fox Sports Radio was notable enough by itself. And now there is more sources that confirm this. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that your "This is probably not enough..." comes across as unnecessarily passive-aggressive. ("Gee, I guess I'm just a sucker for marrying you.") This is an AFD, at which we decide whether or not it's enough. You're free to argue that it is. --Dhartung | Talk 06:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources provided above, looks fine. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources provided by Coasttocoast seem to prove notability and certainly clear verifiability but I strongly urge some enterprising editor to add these (or similar) sources to the current essentially unreferenced article or it will likely face AfD again in the future. - Dravecky (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.