Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montel Jennings

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Montel Jennings

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

Highest office was leading a committee on a Mayor's staff? Not encyclopedically notable. bd2412 T 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Per nom, no substantial evidence of notability. There are 2 sources cited in the article; links are not provided, but it appears that they are: (1) a 1977 article (or actually 2 articles) in Jet in which Jennings (then a law student at Howard) was quoted because he stood in line all night to see the Supreme Court's Bakke argument'[1][2]; and (2) an 2008 op-ed column in the San Francisco Chronicle about the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.[3] The only other things I found were a UPI article mentioning him in connection with Bakke for the same reason as he was mentioned in Jet [4] and an article in the Chron about last year's San Francisco Juneteenth parade (he was on the organizing committee)[5] In other words, none of the coverage is actually about him.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Google News Archive search finds more links for a similarly named basketball player than for him. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the three above me. The JET article is tragic, considering it's one of the few reliable mentions. tedder (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (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.