Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic Jacobs

: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. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

=[[Vic Jacobs]]=

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

Article does not make the notability of this radio personality clear. He's worked at several stations but so have 10's of thousands of others. Zero 3rd party references in the article. The references I've found mention him but only in passing and are all local to the LA market. Nothing that meets WP:BIO's call for the person to be the subject of secondary source material. Is this person really notable or is this article fan cruft? Rtphokie (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

:I think the article should stay. I added a lot of the information to the article originally, but just as far as some biographical information (mostly from his bio from the station's website), but others have added information such as his unabashed cheerleading for Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, which is what Jacobs is mostly known for nowadays. Checking your profile, you're obviously not from the Los Angeles area, otherwise you would have a better understanding about Jacobs and his shtick. Personally, I think Jacobs (or rather his act) is a buffoon and an embarassment to sports radio in this area, but that sort of what makes him more interesting. You (or Wikipedia) take his article off, then you should do it for everyone else. ShawnHill (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

::Comment, Where I'm from is immaterial though I'm originally from the LA area and travel there still for what it's worth. Either this person is notable and sufficient verifiable 3rd party references can located and added to the article, or they aren't and the article needs to be deleted.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete vanity piece that fails WP:BIO Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete as it appears from the article and provided sources that subject has a very modest amount of fame but lacks sufficient notability. - Dravecky (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete vanity piece that is of no importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.24.5 (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep per what seems to be significant coverage in reliable sources [http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LA&p_theme=la&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EF515D4F00FD47D&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM here] and [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/66410382.html?dids=66410382:66410382&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+03%2C+1989&author=Larry+Stewart&pub=Los+Angeles+Times+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Like+Those+Bricks%2C+Vic+Bounces+Back+From+a+Rocky+Start&pqatl=google here] which establishes notability per WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2008 (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.