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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Lewis (radio host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article lacks 3rd party sources supporting the notability of this radio personality. No mention of any awards, no mention of syndication of the radio show. Google news search brings up a number of articles, but they are all local. Is this person notable? Rtphokie (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Do whatever you want, I don't care. I think he is notable, but it's Wikipedia, what does it matter? I've got better things to do than to go find some references to make the article passable. ----PSzalapski (talk) 10:02, June 27, 2008
• Weak Keep IF his role as Limbaugh's most often-used fill-in can be sourced, I can live with that establishing notability, given the amount of affiliates that carry the show. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a false statement - see below. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a lack of sources doesn't mean non-notable, it means lazy editors. As for the nominator, there are a multitude of other sources of information on earth besides Google News, it isn't a very good test of notability, and certainly not a test that should be used when determining whether or not to AFD an article. Pull your head out of your ass. 208.82.225.232 (talk) 08:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:BIO requires sources, pure and simple. Google news is one place to look and yes it's not the only place but it is a good indication of how widely covered a topic is in newspapers and other news sources of many sizes. Still remember. it's the responsibility of the editors who create the articles and add the information to properly source the articles. Please read WP:BIO and WP:BURDEN. If the article can be properly sourced and the consensus is that this person is notable, the I'm all for keeping the article but neither has happened yet.--Rtphokie (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So instead of looking for sources you want to delete the article? What part of WP:N do local news sources fail? There are thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of sourceless articles on this website, that doesn't make them non-notable. You said yourself Google news brings up results, so what about those results make this individual non-notable? Your argument is weak at best and specious at worst. I am sorry I told you to pull your head out of a certain part of your anatomy but this kind of premature deletion attempt does nothing to improve this website. --208.82.225.232 (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I do not like bloviating radio talkers on either end of the political spectrum, but the papers in the towns where his show has been based have had a few articles about him per Google News search[1]. (Some of the stories are about an entertainer of the same name). Edison (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I saw those as well, aren't they all local to wherever Lewis was working at the time? We've got to be careful with DJ's given the transient nature of their careers, what appears as widespread coverage is actually just localized at different periods in their careers.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, all the newspaper articles seem to be from towns where he was locally on the air . But I do not see what part of WP:N that falls short of, as long as the papers are independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. Is there a new requirement that the coverage be in national sources? Edison (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete The article has a number of problems, such as it must cite references on such candidate statements as the involvement in the "Tax Cut Coalition" or the 1990 run for political office. For establishing notability it would help to establish that this person is a Limbaugh stand-in with a link to a new article or deep-link in the Limbaugh site. It is not the burden of the readers to seek out those references, and this reader could not find any in a brief, casual search, sort of making the claim as proof of notability as suspect. The link to the KTLK site does establish this is a valid host of a local radio show, in itself barely making him notable, in that it's lacking the "significant coverage" criteria. Additional cited sources may be cause for re-consideration. Gych (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article is unsourced with a handful of questionable assertions (the claim that Lewis has filled in for Limbaugh most often is patently false as Tony Snow, Bob Dornan, and Walter E. Williams each would fill in for Limbaugh for a week (or weeks) at a time). Essentially, the subject has local notoriety, and there seems to be a lack of nontrivial coverage by reliable sources demonstrating more than that. Regarding a comment written above: it is not a burden for readers to seek out references for an article - the burden falls on the people who write the article in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just a note...I agree regarding the burden falling on the authors. The article is in violation of the biographical citations requirement "Unsourced or poorly sourced material about living persons must be removed immediately". This article is well past the "immediately" timeframe and still no citations. -Gych (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• R# or find a similar article to merge. The source we have is not enough.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:01, 12 July 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.