Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Shoob (3rd nomination)

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Shoob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable radio DJ, Fails NRADIO & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean no disrespect but the prev AFDs aren't worth looking at - Both were in 2006 and neither cited policies nor sources. –Davey2010^Talk 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable radio figure. The article is also overly promotional trying to spin the person's impact as being as large as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While there's a potentially valid notability claim here as the host of a program that appears to be syndicated to a network of radio stations rather than appearing on just one station in one market, what isn't present is the depth of reliable sourcing needed to clear WP:GNG for it. Of the two sources cited here, one is a deadlinked primary source of her former staff profile on the website of her own former employer, and the other one is a brief blurb in a radio industry trade publication — which means the second source would be a valid one for confirmation of stray facts after GNG had been covered off, but is not a source that can bring the GNG in its own right, and the first source counts for all of exactly nothing whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:25, 8 March 2017 (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.