Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tunn

:{{la|Michael Tunn}} ([{{fullurl:Michael Tunn|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Tunn}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Unsourced biography that contains negative information. Wikipedia should not contain unsourced biographies about living people. Miami33139 (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Easily verified. See [http://books.google.ca/books?id=GPmoRFIJBSsC&pg=PA428&dq=%22Michael+Tunn%22 Webster's Quotations], for example. Doesn't seem to be anything negative there anymore. Pburka (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• The WP after each of those book enteries would rather indicate that everything contained therein is a Wikipedia mirror. RasterFaAye (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed. Reading the preface of that book one finds that that is exactly what that means. It's a word-for-word copy of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Tunn&oldid=11094095 this 2005 version of our article], even including the grammatical mistake. Uncle G (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Well spotted. I had assumed that something with "Webster's" in the title could be considered a WP:RS, but I was mistaken. Pburka (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Questionable notability not supported by substantial references. WP:BLP problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Bidgee (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and excise the negative information and look for sources for the remainder. The subject was an announcer on a popular, nationally broadcast radio network and certainly is notable for more than one event The "BLP problems" appear to be one line, unless there is something super-subtle that I am missing. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The "super-subtle" issue you're missing is WP:BLP, which tells us, like the rest of Wikipedia, information must be souced. This is true of information that's positive, or negative, or neutral--not just information that you personally think might be negative. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment' When the topic of "BLP issues" arises it is usually in line with items of a negative nature. Of course, knowing WP:BLP as well as you do, you are aware that it is "contentious material" not all material that BLP attempts to address. Of course, you also know that WP:BLP tells us that if the material is contentious it "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Given that you haven't removed the unsourced information, I assume that you don't find it contentious. So I ask again, what is the BLP issue with the article as it stands and why can't it be addressed through the editing process rather than through deletion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete subject lacks notability, article lacks references and makes unsubstantiated claims. Articles on notable people dont include vague phrases like "is said to be" and "credited... in some circles"--Rtphokie (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep Good indications of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:Upgrading to keep per article improvements. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the lack of references and significant number of claims that are not backed up suggest that there are verifiablity issues if supporters of the article are unable to rustle em up to ascertain claimed notability SatuSuro 05:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It was all it needed - was someone prepared to give it some WP:RS well done NickD SatuSuro 10:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Tunn was a prominent presenter on what's probably the most popular national radio station in Australia for five years, and tons has been written about him. Most JJJ presenters meet WP:BIO (hence all the blue links in List of Triple J presenters), and Tunn is in no way an exception to this - he's probably one of the better known JJJ presenters. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Google news isn't bringing up what I'd call significant coverage. He's mentioned in some articles but generally the article is about a radio station rather than Tunn himself. Could you add some of these references you are referring to?--Rtphokie (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As Tunn was in his most prominent position between 1992 and 1997 Google News isn't going to pick up many stories on him. I remember that there were often stories about him in the print media at the time - he hosted a popular show on a major national radio station. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I just found stories about Tunn from the early 1990s on the Factivia database, and will expand the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep per ChildofMidnight. LotLE×talk 22:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've just substantively re-written the article using sources available on Factivia. It should be stressed that Factivia's coverage of the early 1990s is limited, and only returned results from the Sydney Morning Herald (which is one of Australia's major newspapers). I've kept a couple of paras which look right to me as former JJJ-obsessive, but which I couldn't provide cites for. As the article now draws on a fairly large number of sources, I'd invite editors who have already voted to consider the article as it now stands. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• keep Given Nick's rewrite. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep given the sources Nick found. Pburka (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

: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.