Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Valentine (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 per consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Valentine

Unreferenced article fails to establish why this person is notable. Simply being an author is not enough. Fails WP:BIO, lacks coverage in reliable secondary source material. Rtphokie (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:BIO section on authors, but may be notable as broadcaster with improved refs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He kind of passes WP: BIO when you look at everything he has done. But then again, nothing he has done has been very notable. Coaststocoasts (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, An impressive looking article, but there's nothing in there to suggest that he was more than a garden-variety broadcaster. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Little-known former talk show host, lacks sufficient coverage to be notable. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to be a borderline case. I'd have to see sources added to this article before I could vote for a weak keep. Also, some portions appear to be a WP:COPYVIO from here [1], so that problem would have to be cleared up as well. If these issues aren't resolved within the next few days, I'll be back to vote weak delete. The books alone, however, since most of them are from legitimate publishers, should be enough to establish notability if their existence can be substantiated. Qworty (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Portions of article are copyvios; there are no independent citations from reliable sources supporting the assertions presented in this article. Two books printed by rather well-known publishing houses get him close to the notability bar, but perhaps any yet-to-be-found citations might be enough for a new, non-copyvio, non-promotional article can be kept. The best move here is to scrape clean. B.Wind (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2008 (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.