Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurice Jay

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Jay

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

Subject of the article is of no importance or significance: i.e. a real person, who appears NOT to meet criteria for notability for inclusion. Also main editor of this article appears to have a close connection with the subject: i.e. person himself . Mootros (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major-market broadcaster whose career exploits appear to have garnered him significant coverage by reliable third-party sources (like this). COI issues are a matter for tagging, not for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudging keep. I generally don't like it when people post articles about themselves. However, there are plenty of claims to notability here, the decider for me being his inclusion on the sound of 2008 panel - that means the BBC rates him highly as a notable music pundit. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per subject meeting notability for various projects through WP:GNG. As the article now belongs to Wikipedia, concerns with COI are best addressed in this case by author being cautioned and article being sent to cleanup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reconsidered keep. I am the AfD nominator. Although the article still has major issues, recent changes[1] clearly indicate some form of notability. Mootros (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoned withdrawal is quite gracious. Yes, the article needs more work... but as you note, it is being seen to. The discussions you've had with the author reflect the best of Wikipedia in your willingness to assist others in addressing solvable issues. Nice job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 22 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.