Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Maynard

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. Tone 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Maynard

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NBIO; lacks sources Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why an editor thinks that this broadcaster lacks notability is a mystery. He is a New England celebrity, a member of the Massachusetts Broadcasters Hall of Fame, the WBZ Radio Hall of Fame, and is the best known broadcaster in WBZ history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cg2112 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources are either about his death or primary trivial coverage. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cg2112. The article only needs a little clean-up. Nonetheless, it is good enough to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources indicated there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the subject of significant coverage. There is nothing wrong with using coverage at the time of his death as long as it is written by journalists rather than a paid obituary written by family members. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources that are about his death. Many of then were written on the occasion of his death, but they are about his life. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potato, potato. The problem is that all the coverage on him occurred after he died and because of it, but for someone to be notability there has to be sustained coverage of them over a certain amount of time and not just in relation to a single thing. Which I would argue a bunch of articles about a guy who died would be. The articles are literally titled "Veteran Boston broadcaster Dave Maynard dies at 82." So you can't claim it's not what they are about. That they also happen to mention he was a broadcaster in them is pretty inconsequential to the actual subject of them, his death. Especially that particular article. Which is extremely short. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found coverage in the Boston Globe about the end of his Community Auditions show: "Moving on — after 5,000 acts" (June 1986). There's also coverage of his cookbooks: "Ahem, you weren't thinking of ignoring soup, were you?" (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Nov 1984). Here's another Boston Globe article about Community Auditions: "Community Auditions: 35 years of entertainment" (Feb 1985). And another Globe article about a billing irregularity with his show: "'BZ tallies cost of Maynard mis-billing" (Aug 1986). He was well-known and received significant coverage before his death. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2020 (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.