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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. A presenter for a home-shopping channel with no other claim to fame. Google hits: 188, only the first one appears to be her and it's this article. Ifnord 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite Remove silly trivia section, because the whole article is borderline trivia Ruby 16:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Full name gets 0 google hits. IMDB has no entry. This is an implied crystal ball article. Yes she's on tv, but in a barely notable capacity. She may be famous one day. Let's let that day be the day this article is accepted for reposting. --Fuhghettaboutit 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I don't think any article should be deleted because of how famous someone is. As long as someone can be bothered to do a page for someone, then it should remain on the site. I have already heard fellow fans of Kat recommend others to have a look at this page. I would personally like to see a page for every celebrity (no matter how big or small). I have been disappointed numerous times after searching for people I see on TV only to find that no one has created a page for them. At the moment, this is the best place for information on this person and many fans of her will be glad that there is a place to read a bit about her. She is already very popular among the viewers and is mentioned on forums as being a favourite presenter of theirs. If someone isn't on IMDB or Google, it then means that Wikipedia may be the only source of information for certain celebrities. This website will generate hits from people interested in such minor celebrities as it has information exclusive to Wikipedia, who may then go on to contibute on topics (that you deem important) that they may have new information on. I don't think it is fair to single out this article for deletion, this is missing the whole point of Wikipedia, this site is here to list information on as many things as possible (the perfect Wikipedia would be one where everything in the world that exists will have information available). Kat Shoob has many loyal viewers and fans and many people will be glad that this page exists. If you want to go around deleting things on this site, I suggest looking around video game pages and deleting all the articles on unknown characters that don't warrant a page of their own. Plus, someone needs to edit all the useless information on professional wrestler's pages. Many users go around adding what happens each week in the WWE on the pages for individual pro wrestlers without even realizing that these are all storylines that don't apply to the actual performers. If this attack is due to webspace concerns - then the definition for pages up for deletion are Wikipedia user pages - these are full of information on people who only one person in the world has heard of; theirself. A page on Wikipedia is justified even if all the information available is one sentence informing people on who someone is. Wikipedia should be a one-stop-shop for information. If someone wants to find out who Greg Scott is for example, all they need to do is type his name into Wikipedia and they will find out that he is a TV presenter on ITV1. This should apply to every celebrity imaginable. To me, the reason for Wikipedia's existence is to be a superior source of information to everything else, due to the fact that it can be a source of information on subjects or people that would never find themselves in a published encyclopaedia. (Someone like John Cena (the wrestler and music star) is hugely popular but would never make it into an actual encyclopaedia even though people would be interested in reading about him). It is my personal opinion that pages like this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sindel on fictional characters in a videogame, are ridiculous and totally undeserving of their own entry, but it's not about what individual people find worthy. Some people feel it is interesting and worthwhile information. People with nothing more than a single spoken line in a film should have pages. There will always be someone who searches for some obscure celebrity that neither me or you knows in an attempt to find extra information and it's only going to increase Wikipedia's relevance in the grand scheme of the Internet. Wikipedia is about bringing all information togther in one place, not about deciding who's fit to be included. Maybe if Kat left the industry and wasn't employed for a certain length of time, I could see a reason for deleting this article. But while ever she is in the public eye (in any capacity), then there is no real reason to get rid of this page. To summarise then, the contributions people make are to improve Wikipedia, I don't see how deleting information will make Wikipedia a better website. ---Mr.bonus 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Instantaneous delete after reading through the above rant. WP:BIO is all that matters. Mr. bonus, if you are the article creator, please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines, and most importantly what Wikipedia is not: "a one-stop shop for information" (while many people regard it as such, it is not Google), "a superior source of information to everything else" (I'm glad people think so, but we're all only human and John Seigenthaler Sr., among others, would differ) and most emphatically not "about bringing all information togther in one place, not about deciding who's fit to be included" (This is absolutely the wrong page to make this argument on). Now go, and sin no more! Daniel Case 22:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, don't WP:BITE, at least not here -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BIO, nuff said. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable biography. —Cleared as filed. 22:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. If the information is not available elsewhere, as per the author's comments above, then it is in essence unverifiable and indicates lack of notability. --Kinu 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'DO NOT DELETE* An upcoming TV presenter, a perfectly valid entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.111.186 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Go Ahead and Abuse Your Power Like I didn't know this was coming (deleting it without any more discussion). Just because you can't accept that these are valid points and you are nothing mre than people who waste their lives on the Internet by going round looking for something to do to feel important. Where does it end? You can't possibly find, warn and then delete all pages that you don't feel are relevant (I've seen hundreds just like my own) and if you didn't stumble across it, you would be none the wiser and it would still be up there. Bottom line is you want more red links throughout this site than blue ones. If Wiki follows the same rules as regular encyclopaedias then I suggest you lot of fools make it your life-long career to go and remove the piles of trash people have written about fighting game, RPG and Anime characters, unknown companies such as Sit-Up, and some random videogame (almost any one that can be named) that has more text written about it than all the world's politicians combined. These certainly wouldn't justify inclusion in the encyclopaedia Brittanica. Even though the amount of garbage on this site makes a mockery of what you have done to my page and what is written on the WP:BIO if that's what this site is "supposed" to stick to, I'm not contributing anything more (even though I have rewritten sections of "important" articles that you would deem worthy), It's a pointless exercise. I only discovered Wiki recently but it is not what I thought it was. It turns out it's just a terribly sub-standard version of actual encyclopaedias, with no distinct selling-point and a place that Internet amoebas populate and destroy just the same as any forum. So go ahead and delete the page it's not like I'm ever going to return here and while you are at it go and delete your webspace wasting user-profile that nobody with anything resembling a life gives a toss about. And look at this; the only person that says 'Don't Delete' doesn't possess a user profile. That speaks volumes. The only proof you need to see that you singled out my page solely to abuse your 'power' and delete it, is this; you use the WP:BIO against me in order to justify my page's deletion, yet ignore it completely when you want to create a page about Star Wars Kid or any given wrstler from OVW (a non-televised wrestling promotion). If you pretend it doesn't exist in these circumstances, it allows you to make a page about such a worthless non-entities. Which catergorization from the WP:BIO are people abusing to allow random porn 'stars' to be included? Pornstars can't be seen in any mainstream media. My article is about someone who can be seen on British TV every week.. This site is a complete mockery. You can't apply these rules to one page but not to another. Why the HELL I persist with the Internet when it's full of people like you lot I have no idea......—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.40.122 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please do not respond to the above tirade, as per WP:BITE and WP:TROLL. --Kinu 02:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable vanity --DV8 2XL 01:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For comparison's sake, note that very few of HSN's presenters have articles, either (and I'm not sure about some that do). If Diana Perkovic remains a redlink, Ms. Shoob should too. Daniel Case 03:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, though if someone wanted to do an omnibus article on the presenters for price-drop tv, I'm sure that would be OK, but Shoob doesn't have enough notability to rate her own article ... yet. 23skidoo 04:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Eusebeus 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP'** It may not be doing any good for some, but it is certainly not doing any harm. There seems quite enough pomposity here already. Valid entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.111.186 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 5 February 2006 (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.