Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy Jackett

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Jackett

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Run-of-the-mill podcaster. Possible COI or paid editing, and likely SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A lot of the coverage is very routine "media personality" reporting, but I think there might be just enough reported non routine activity, eg, 7-11 and oBike, to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While COI, PAID, and SPA are red flags, if the content stacks up with reliable references then it does not matter. SPA is not definite here anyway ? Aoziwe (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here as a venue to publicly profess your love for your co host. TNT this love letter. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the agreed myriad problems, the disagreement over actual notability makes a relisting worthwhile
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refbombed, but most of it looks like WP:MILL coverage. The actual text of the article is drivel. At best, this needs WP:TNT. If somebody points out the WP:THREE best sources, I'll have another look, but from what I see now, it's not worth keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2019 (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.