Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JoAnn Genette

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnn Genette

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

Non-notable radio personality lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you reconsider, I have recently provided independent sources from respected print media (Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune) that are easily verified, please review and advise Billy Nickols Billy Nickols (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You are right the articles are easy to confirm; however, the bad news is they are not "non-trivial" coverage. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I ask you to reconsider. I have not received any feedback as what is considered not “non-trivial“, so I went to the Wikipedia Guidelines -

Wikipedia:Notability General notability guideline “without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter promotional self-published sources,…” *The works cited are not promotional, and the authors are without bias. They do not promote or endorse, and are some of the most respected reporters in the media field. This article is not using Blogs, websites, promotional material, or non-traditional material to show notoriety. The Robert Feder articles are in the Chicago Sun-Times with Daily circulation of 312,274 readers not including online readers. In 2008 it was number 21 most circulated paper in the nation.

Jim Kirk’s articles appeared in The Chicago Tribune daily circulation of half a million, number 8 most circulated in the United States.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. You point out that they are easily verified, and it does not appear that you needed original research to extract the content.

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material” This validates the two of the segments I have used as references, and the third “WLIT Signs on Two New Hosts” is directly referring to the subject of the article.

I apologize if I am being verbose, but the article , as I am sure you can imagine, is important to me. I hope you can reconsider - Billy Nickols Billy Nickols (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any sources that show that this person is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope you can reconsider, in accordance with Wikipedia's "Identifying Reliable Sources" I have included citation from respected print news organizations. These are not Blogs, but reliable print sources. Please reconsider and advise. Thank you. Billy Nickols Billy Nickols (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You are right the articles are easy to confirm; however, the bad news is they are not "non-trivial" coverage. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.

Thank you for your input. Please do not be hasty in deleting this, I will improve the article if possible. Could you provide guidance on what you would considered "non-trivial". Thank you. Billy Nickols Billy Nickols (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a persuasive explanation why this article should remain - if the editors really believe this article should not stay, they should answer. If they cannot, it should remain Billy Nickols Billy Nickols (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (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.