Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Daynard (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Daynard[edit]

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

Completely unsourced WP:BLP of a retired single-market local radio personality, with no notability claim strong enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. As so often happens, this is written very much like somebody just copied his staff biography from the station he was working for at the time, rewrote it just enough to avoid WP:COPYVIO issues, and called that an article. Note that while this was kept at AFD in 2005, Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards have been considerably tightened up over the intervening 12 years, and this no longer meets the requirements that apply today. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No substantive coverage about the subject in reliable sources, just a few mentions. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interestingly enough the nominator here worte a long and reasoned keep vote back in the 2005 discussion. This is actually an even better argument for deletion. In the intervening 12 years we have learned several things. 1-we need to set standards of inclusion that reflect that Wikipedia is a global project. The standards in 2005 almost seem to have been built on the notion it was a UK/Canada/US project. 2-our vision in 2005 was of an unsustainable number of contributors, combined with a hope of contributors focusing more time and energy on the project than they generally have. We cannot keep an article with its only source being IMDb, since IMDb is not a reliable source. While we once had a vision of being a very broad directory, we have realized this makes quality control too hard, and undermines creating articles on actually notable subjects. So we need to delete articles such as this one so we can focus on articles on notable peopel such as Ebenezer Joshua, the first chief minister in post-indepdence St. Vincent and the Grenadines. When national leaders in the Caribbean get less coverage than many less important people by any measure in the US, we have a problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 4 September 2017 (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.