Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Hastings

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. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Hastings

Chad Hastings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable, no independent sources. Paxsimius (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as resume-ish. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid I was making it sound too resume-ish. I am writing on stuff I know of Chad from the previous radio show. I am happy to edit it to make it sound less like a resume. Please let me know if this would be acceptable. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiel (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I went in and deleted some of the more personal items. I now just have info about The Chad Hastings Show and also info about his work with KVET. Hopefully, this will make it look less like a resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiel (talk • contribs) 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - lack of notability. Snigbrook (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO at present. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Resume-ish writing can be fixed. I see no assertion of meeting WP:BIO. 9 Google News hits suggest local notability, but not meeting WP:BIO. 32 Google Web hits, mostly blogs, suggest some local notability, but not meeting WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words, I did not find anything supporting a claim of notability amongst the google hits. There are blog entries, but blogs are not verifiable sources. I saw no verifiable, reliable sources. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 07:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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.