Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zack Spencer

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. Uncontested; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Spencer

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a television and radio personality. This reads very much like a cut-paste job from his staff profile on an employer's website rather than an encyclopedia article, and it's referenced entirely to a single primary source rather than any reliable source coverage about him in media. Being a radio or television broadcaster, even on a nationally-aired show, is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be reliably sourced -- it's the depth of media coverage that can be provided about him that determines whether he gets a Wikipedia article or not, not the unsourced claim of significance. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 22 April 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.