Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Stricklan

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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stricklan

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Google turns up only trivial mentions of him. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DJs and producers must be quite notable to pass WP:CREATIVE. He does not pass it. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I tried to find something that would even warrant a redirect, but there just isn't anything that meets the various notability requirements. Location (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need yet another DJ article. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2010 (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.