Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Conrad

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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Conrad

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

Questionably notable and improvable with its current version and the best links I found was only this, this and this. Notifying taggers Nomoskedasticity and Fylbecatulous and WikiDan61 fixed a ref error so I'm not sure if he'd want to comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable regional radio broadcaster. DGG ( talk ) 09:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, with WP:BLP concerns, without prejudice to recreation with better sourcing. There might be a case for WP:BIO. I'm seeing several news sources about him and he does host his own show on BBC. But the sources cited are all poor or primary, in-text citations lacking, and the prose mostly constitutes a resume-like list of positions. Unfortunately, almost all of the sources I'm seeing are about controversial comments, criticism, apologies, etc. such that it's clear that not only is the current article quite inadequate and, perhaps, undue, but that to write a good article would be tricky and more or less require starting over. It's sort of borderline, but I think WP:TNT is the best option here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 27 November 2015 (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.