Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Andrew


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Cat Andrew

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advertorially tinted WP:BLP of radio DJ and writer, which makes notability claims ("two of the best selling books on the subject") but fails to properly source them as true; the only sources here are the primary source program schedule of the station where he works, and a contextless unfootnoted list of incomplete citations in the format "Insight Magazine 1984" (which, great, but WHAT article in Insight Magazine WHEN in 1984?) This simply is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person into Wikipedia, and nothing here entitles him to an exemption from having to be referenced properly. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   05:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I see no evidence the book "The 60s Start Here" ever existed, possibly a hoax article. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this is a hoax. No broadcaster of this name worked for BBC Radio 2 or Capital Radio in that era - the former is on Genome and no such person is revealed.  So I have removed those claims, but I think this should go anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I'm pretty sure that "Cat Andrew" is a stage name rather than his real name — so it's possible that he did work for the stations in question under a different name which the creator just failed to specify. But, of course, we would require reliable sourcing to properly verify that, so removing the claims wasn't wrong. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (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.