Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Marvin

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. Big Dom 16:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Marvin[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because it does not look notable enough for Wikipedia --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 00:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources given aren't 3rd-party. Therefore, much of the page cannot be backed up. Who knows-those claims about interviewing famous people could be bogus.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update:Keep as per the fact that that problem was fixed.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found and added sources for some of the statements in the article. It may be possible to find sources for the other statements in the article as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article as it now stands is quite well sourced and appears to easily cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - looking at the article improvements and the comments here, if the nominator wants to withdraw the nom we could close as withdrawn. Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In essence, per WP:HEY (despite my not !voting previously, I've been watching and wondering which way to go). Good work from Metropolotan90. I'm glad to see that the BLP concerns - which caused me to remove a chunk, and explain here on BPN - appear to have been resolved. I hope some others can keep a watchlist on this one. ~~Also, presumably we can rm the "notability" tag now?~~^† What was this thing in the nom about "also nominating the following related pages"? Chzz ► 20:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^†Struck, as I decided I could boldly just remove that tag myself, so I did. Chzz ► 20:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the page, he is not notable and frankly is no better than some podunk city alderman from a town nobody ever heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.52.162 (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.217.52.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Chzz ► 15:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before anybody starts accusing of sockpuppetary, that IP address is not me. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my (User:Tyw7) IP address. --2.124.218.166 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The mere thought hadn't even begun to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing my mind" (Douglas Adams quote) Chzz ► 23:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is because I have started nominating pages that that IP address has commented on as not significant (cause I too think they are not significant).----Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:56, 10 March 2011 (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.