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. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Reed Tucker[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio personality, referenced entirely to directly affiliaed primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, radio personalities do not get an automatic "no valid sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because they exist; rather, they must be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage, in sources independent of their own self-published web presence, to pass WP:GNG. Nothing here shows that, however. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of any 3rd-party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. unique name, but searches come up empty. Lede asserts that he is best known for The Lazlow Show, but a search on "Jonathan Reed Tucker" + "The Lazlow Show" brought up nothing useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2018 (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.