Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Maiman

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Maiman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN, three unclear references removed (404). –Be..anyone 💩 01:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Be..anyone: I restored two sources that were removed from the article. The updated links were easily found using a Google search. Note that dead links are often fixable, and that the {{dead link}} template should often be used to denote dead links, rather than just removing them. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully not the "cab driver" reference. If I understood it correctly those links were primary references on the web site of the radio where he worked (= doesn't help for notability, only for verification.) –Be..anyone 💩 02:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just the The Sacramento Bee and Appeal-Democrat WP:NEWSBLOG source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, less work when I just undo my dead link deletions before the PROD or AfD in future cases, thanks. –Be..anyone 💩 03:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing actually convincing of the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article on a non-notable radio personality. Not the people who allegedly first appeared on his show do not merit articles, so I am not sure why they are mentioned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A radio personality known only at the local media market level can qualify for a Wikipedia article if he can be sourced well enough to satisfy WP:GNG — but he does not get a free pass over WP:CREATIVE, in the absence of a GNG-satisfying volume and quality of sourcing, just because he moved around to more than one local media market over the course of his career. Nothing claimed here is substantive or well-sourced enough to make him more notable than the norm for people at this level. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2016 (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.