Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Reuss

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. MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Reuss

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a writer and radio personality, making no strong claim of notability under WP:CREATIVE for either activity and citing no strong reliable source coverage. As a radio personality she's associated with a single radio station in a single media market, her book is a self-published e-book, and the sourcing here is entirely to blogs, the commercial sales pages of her book on online bookstores, and self-published PR platforms. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which anybody in any field of endeavour is entitled to an article just because they exist -- it's an encyclopedia, on which a credible and encyclopedic claim of notability, and the depth and breadth of reliable source coverage needed to verify its accuracy, must be present for a person to earn an article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for coverage in reliable sources, and the best I came up with is this, which is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG in my book. I cannot see any other claim to notability, and the article is vaguely promotional, too. CSD#A7 is borderline applicable here, I would say... Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local media personality with no significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Google results are mostly social media and blogs, much as in the article itself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hit all the databases I have access to and didn't find anything to support notability. She is mentioned in a few articles, but it's not enough. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2016 (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.