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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk McEwen[edit]

Kirk McEwen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article fails WP:BIO. There are three claims made. One is that he's a radio personality. There is no reliable third party source that even confirms that fact so far. The second is that he had a bit part in a movie. That's not enough, else we'd be swimming in articles of those with bit parts, walk ons, and who acted as extras. The final claim is that he was nominated with others for a magazine's award. It's such an obscure award that the only Google results are literally versions of this article. In addition, the link to one year's award nominees does not even list him by name. Each independent claim, I submit, is not enough for notability. I would further say that the sum of all three claims doesn't get beyond the WP:BIO guideline, particularly given the dearth of reliable third party sources on display. Erechtheus (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The link at the bottom provides THE primary source for radio station dj awards. His KMS show is clearly there. The two other links show him on 105.7 and the imdb entry has his work at 98 Rock; IMDB is used often as third party sourcing on wikipedia. It easily passes the notability test; I made sure it did before making the entry. WillC (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a radio host and having an IMDb page doesn't make you notable. What has he done that meets WP:BIO? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the claims made are enough to meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and start over based on the current version. Clearly but barely meets notability requirements with several nominations for minor industry awards and more importantly a credited but non-speaking part in a wide-release movie. Current article is so poorly written that it's easier to start over. I expect that if I looked, I could find 3rd-party news articles about him in his area newspapers. Alternatively, keep on condition someone steps up to the plate and radically improves it before this AfD ends then you can disgregard my delete opinion. Userfication recommended if someone needs more than a few days to improve it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was told the third party IMDB link does not work but it does. The awrds link does list his show (the KMS show) very clearly. The WP:BIO notability says they have to be award-worthy. I added another third party link talking about their ballyhooed switching from 98 Rock to 105.7. Lastly, I don't understand why Kirk is nominated for deletion yet Mark Ondayko, R. Edward Lopez, Josh Spiegel, Mickey and Amelia.....all local personalities Kirk has worked with, have had wiki entries for months yet KIrk does not make it and he has had more exposure and is more verified and notably than the rest of them put together. WillC (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re: WillC's comment above: WillC, are you recommending deletion of those articles? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A double standard is being applied. Keep them all or delete them all. I believe all should stay. They pass notability rules. WillC (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the other articles closely, but I agree, this passes notability, but it utterly fails quality. It's so bad that deleting without prejudice now and starting over at some future editor's convenience or rewriting now are better than keeping what's here. Unless you or some other editor steps up to the plate soon, my vote is to delete no the grounds that it's WP:WORSETHANNOTHING. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please suggest what would make it better? WillC (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a template up on the article talk page. I don't have enough information to complete it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 11 June 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.