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. The arguments for lack of valid sources are strongly founded in WP:NOTE. Zsinj^Talk 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It has been two years since the page was last nominated for deletion (here is the original nomination) and the article still looks like a vanity page. No sources are provided for any of the notability claims, and the only external links are to blogs. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - may be notable, but the only links are to sites associated with the person himself, hence no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party sources, which is required to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I would say that under WP:BIO, Sean Kennedy meets notability under "Entertainers: A large fan base, fan listing, or 'cult' following". In addition, I think he meets "Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers". Here's a 2003 interview with James O'Brien, where Kennedy also speaks (a GIF of the original interview is available on that page):

http://www.rantradio.com/media-200305-computerpaper.php

• He spoke at Adirondack Community College on Monday February 7, 2005 on the importance of independent media (a GIF of the original poster is available on that page):

http://www.rantradio.com/events-ny2005.php

• This is just two links of info, 5 minutes work. Yes, the article isn't encyclopedic, but no, it's not prime deletion material. I hope that everyone reads the previous AfD for this page before finalizing a comment. I'm wondering, if it still reads like a vanity page, did you try trimming out all the vanity before coming to AfD? Davidicke 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How large is Kennedy's fanbase, Davidicke? Bennie Noakes 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newsreal presently airs on 11 internet stations. Dunno any more than that. Davidicke

• Keep per links provided by Davidicke, which I will add to the article shortly (if nothing else, as External links). -- Black Falcon 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, it's me again. I found a little feature in Spin Magazine, November 2000. [1] And also, Cim & Sean's summer 2000 interview by Wired Magazine. [2] So, notability is now established. Davidicke 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sean Kennedy was interviewed [3] by The Way of the Master Radio Show back in October of 2006. For those of you who do not know Way of the Master Radio, it is best know for being Sirius Satellite Radio based Christian radio program, but also airs on hundreds of stations around the world. [4] --Nalos6 02:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuice^talk 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have vanity concerns, and way more is written here than what can be verified in sources. I'm also concerned about neutrality. I don't think rantradio.com should be used for reliable sources here. The Wired.com article says very little about this person. He may have been interviewed on a Satellite radio show once, but I don't know what was said or what that proves. Notability is questionable at best. Mangojuice^talk 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions on references The vanity issues could theoretically be dealt with by cleaning up the article to remove biased or unreferenced statements. However, I am concerned that all the references in the article appear at first glance to be from rantradio.com, which is not independent of the article's subject. Neither is the subject's official web site. So I'd be much more comfortable keeping the article if it can be ammended to include some independent published articles or interviews with the man. If that's done, I'd go for "keep and cleanup article to remove bias and unverified statements". Dugwiki 19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we interpret that as "delete unless independent sources are found?" I think the community may have done as much research here as it's going to. Mangojuice^talk 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, if nothing else changes in the article, I'd probably lean toward deleting, with the possibility of recreating at a later date if those problems can be addressed. Dugwiki 23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see my comments above. Independent references satisfying WP:N include Spin, Wired, and The Computer Paper. Are we allowed to edit during the AfD process? Who wants to start the editing? Davidicke 17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, please feel free to improve the article during afd. Sometimes afds go from being "delete" to "keep" based on changes made during the discussion. Dugwiki 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sometimes they become much better articles. See Newspaper riddle for an example. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:57, 9 March 2007 (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.