Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Rogers
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny Rogers
I placed a speedy tag on this, but someone removed it on the grounds that "0 google hits does not a speedy make - notability is asserted in the article (aren't broadcasters notable?). This isn't blatant advertising, either. It does desperately need verification though.".
While I see the reasoning, the article looks like an attempt to get listeners to his show. Also the only important links in this article (the radio stations on which he has worked) are red, something which doesn't help him in this case. Are all broadcasters really notable? Delete. Punkmorten 14:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged as such. Friday (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Speedy and shudder at the thought of setting an "all broadcasters are notable" precedent. Just imagine: everyone who's ever done local radio or television, anywhere in the world, for any length of time, gets an article? Besides, if that's true, I should have an article by now. I think not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but don't speedy. I undeleted this after it was speedied before, because it doesn't seem to me that it meets the criteria for speedy deleteion - it does, after all, assert the notability of its subject. Whether the subject is in fact notable is a topic which deserves discussion, and an AfD discussion is one way to do that. Speedying it sets a bad precedent in my opinion, as articles which do assert notability but one or two people feel aren't actually notable should not be deleted on sight. Lupin|talk|popups 16:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not voting on this one, but Lupin, I am very interested in why you think "it does, after all, assert the notability of its subject."—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 01:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nn-bio JoJan 17:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. A listed occupation is no more a claim to notability than a listed place of residence. Everyone has an occupation. — mendel ☎ 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not strictly true. Imagine an article on X that said "X was a Prime Minister of Canada." No other info. Lets say you have no quick way of determining whether it is true or false (google not working). Will you put a speedy tag on it? Some professions are of sufficient importance and historical significance such that even the mere act of saying he was a member of the "prime-ministerial profession of Canada," if you will, is sufficient assertion of notability that A7 cannot apply. Likewise for, say, astronauts. But most professions do not have that characteristic. "X is an accountant", ...doctor, ...scientist, ...lawyer, ...porn actress — these all do not constitute assertions of notability. (It does not mean they can't have articles, but it does mean they must have done or become notable in some way that enough was written about them to satisfy WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:RS). So the question is, where (and how) do you draw the line?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Being the prime minister, president, etc isn't a profession, it's a position within the larger profession of politics . Though obviously, prime ministers are notable, the consensus is very strong that simply belonging to a profession isn't a claim of notability. Even the in classic notable profession, astronaut, this holds true: astronauts aren't notable just for putting on a space suit and being associated with a space program, they're notable for what they do: i.e. going into space. In other words, notability is not being part of a profession, but accomplishments within that profession. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not strictly true. Imagine an article on X that said "X was a Prime Minister of Canada." No other info. Lets say you have no quick way of determining whether it is true or false (google not working). Will you put a speedy tag on it? Some professions are of sufficient importance and historical significance such that even the mere act of saying he was a member of the "prime-ministerial profession of Canada," if you will, is sufficient assertion of notability that A7 cannot apply. Likewise for, say, astronauts. But most professions do not have that characteristic. "X is an accountant", ...doctor, ...scientist, ...lawyer, ...porn actress — these all do not constitute assertions of notability. (It does not mean they can't have articles, but it does mean they must have done or become notable in some way that enough was written about them to satisfy WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:RS). So the question is, where (and how) do you draw the line?—encephalonὲγκέφαλον 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Puff! The curate's egg 20:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speaking as someone who is on the air via voicetracking every weeknight with the occasional live shift thrown in, I shudder to think of the precedent this would set by saying that every weekend jock in every small market is somehow worthy of an article. Let's nip this in the bud now, please. - Lucky 6.9 02:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication that he passes the average DJ test. Quale 22:10, 17 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.