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 per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Jacobs[edit]

Vic Jacobs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nomination as per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 22#Vic Jacobs, closed as overturn and relist (see first AfD). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the two sources I identified in the first AFD here and here, as well as the sources found during the deletion review including this one. These establish notability per WP:BIO as they provide significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Were you going to add those sources to the article?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the references section. Davewild (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references still could use some work. The url for that SI article has been added. Footnotes are needed for the other 2 references so that it's clear what in the article they are supporting.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as sources prove notability and verifiability but those references need to be integrated into the article quickly or this is likely to suffer a fate similar to the last go-round. - Dravecky (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Local radio show that I originally suggested deletion, but have since found a brief article in Sports Illustrated where this person was the subject. Article does need cleanup though, getting rid of that trivia section should be job #1 --Rtphokie (talk) 14:53, 26 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.