Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Haydu

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. Nakon 00:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Haydu

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a radio personality, who was known as host only on one standalone radio station in one media market before spending the rest of his career as a technician rather than an on-air voice. This is not enough to get a person over our inclusion criteria for radio hosts; while a single-market radio host can get an article if he can be shown to pass WP:GNG, local radio DJs do not get an automatic inclusion pass just for existing. But the only sources here are a fansite devoted to the station he was a host on, and a deadlink of a radio hobbyist's own self-published radio market history -- which means they don't count as reliable sources. I'll grant that this may have been includable under the standards that pertained in 2005, but the rules have been tightened up considerably in the past decade and he doesn't pass them as they stand today. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local radio personalities are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 19 June 2016 (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.