Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Beautiful to Live (2nd nomination)
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
- 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 keep. There is a strong consensus here that sufficient coverage in reliable sources have demonstrated notability.
I would strongly counsel the nominator not to follow up on the stated intention to take this to
the notability policy. I see no evidence that the majority of participants here are "too close to the topic", or that our normal standards should be disregarded. ~ mazca talk 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Too Beautiful to Live
AfDs for this article:
- Too Beautiful to Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a local, nighttime radio show that aired for 18 months and averaged 1400 listeners.[1] It has since been canceled. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
-->UPDATE | Since this AfD discussion has descended into personal attacks and, since in review of the contents of the first AfD discussion it appears the same thing occurred, I'm going to nominate this for Deletion Review so a non-involved party can make the decision to purge this article as it appears everyone here is too close to the topic (and, since I've been the subject of three four attacks, I'll include myself in that, as well). I'll leave the AfD open for a day or two more first but, in the interest of mitigating the down-spiral of civility here, will not be participating in additional discussion. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After the personal attacks that I also have suffered, I agree with Bluecanary99's decision for Deletion Review. It is best to get a non-involved party before anyone else becomes the subject of a personal attack. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: remaining neutral on merits, but talk) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: remaining neutral on merits, but
- To clarify, I don't intend to appeal to DRV until the AfD has run its course. Any no-delete decision that results from that will obviously have been colored by another users taunting attitude and veiled attacks so a DRV will be necessary for equanimity. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reviewing the first deletion discussion it appears it devolved into a personality issue and didn't get fair treatment. Revisiting this in the "light of day" it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable, unless some reference exists that establishes it as having something that makes it notable. A podcast - like a webpage (for instance - google.com has a wikipedia entry because there are other facts, aside from the fact it exists, that makes it notable; web-donkeys.com does not have a wikipedia entry, nor should it) - by the fact it exists and in absence of any reasonable mitigation, is not notable. Bluecanary99 (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This AfD nomination was malformed. It is fixed now. No opinion on merits. talk) 13:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is not temporary, and was established by an overwhelming consensus in the first AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Arxiloxos. Jkiang (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems silly. I came across this acronym only today and found the (brief) Wikipedia entry very useful. Why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.54.13.229 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The show doesn't lose notability with cancellation. It continues in podcast form and whatever the case, remains as a rare example of a major-market radio station programming something in the evening timeslot besides a syndicated yapper or music. It of course doesn't help that the 7pm slot is usually pre-empted often with sports and that played into the cancellation. Also, note that the article listed 1,400 listeners in the 25-54 demographic, not total (which judging from KIRO's market leading status, means there were more people listening under 25 and over 54); please don't mangle statistics to fit your POV. chatter) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) doesn't lose notability - we can't assume it ever had notability just because it passed AfD once (see my comment re: unfair treatment given to topic given obvious personal issues between participants), (2) it continues in podcast form - (a) a podcast is not notable absent additional qualifiers, (b) we don't know how long it will continue in podcast form; a day or a decade - it has no established history as a standalone podcast; according to the reference in the Seattle Times the host is only willing to commit for a few months, until January; the date at which his former radio station stops paying him, (3) a rare example of a major-market radio station programming something in the evening timeslot besides a syndicated yapper or music ... I've listened to KIRO-AM/FM with semi-occasional regularity and I can't recall when they've ever had music or syndicated talk at 7PM, or at least since the year 2000. Prior to this I lived in LA and - among non-music stations - there was a lot of local, non-music programming in the evening. Do you have a source or reference that this is "rare" as casual observation seems to suggest otherwise?
- This time slot has been a revolving door at KIRO. The "TBTL" show sat there longer than soon, shorter than most. If the above criteria are enough to keep this article, for editorial balance, we should also need articles on Northwest Sports Night, the Frank Shiers Show and the dozen or other programs that preceded - and will likely follow - this program at 7:00 on KIRO. (note: I do not support that; a simple one-line reference or footnote in the KIRO-FM page is maybe okay)
- not total (which judging from KIRO's market leading status, means there were more people listening under 25 and over 54) - A station ranked 19th does not have "market leading status."[1]
- Also, please don't use phrases of confrontation like "don't mangle statistics to fit your POV" in a civil discussion. It's too early in the AfD thread to discard mature dialog and debate just yet. Perhaps in a few days, though. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Outside of major markets (and with many major broadcasters these days within major markets), most of the 7pm-midnight time slots have been turned over to either syndicated talkers, voicetracked hosts who have done their shows hours or days before, prime time sports talk, or the likes of John Tesh or Delilah. This is the conventional wisdom of radio today. I was saying in general radio has went in the direction of not doing local after 7pm these days.
- The show was on for over a year. What preceded it really doesn't matter, and those shows didn't have the uniqueness this one did as they just either talked about the issues of the day or reviewed sports action, something that many other shows already do.
- I was not attempting to attack you at all, just clarifying that the number you cited came with the condition that a certain age group was measured, not just the entire audience, and if you nominate an article you better make sure you're not misleading the discussion. Since they were targeting young people also, that takes out a chunk of 18-25 listeners not cited in the referenced article. chatter) 03:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not attempting to attack you at all, just clarifying that the number you cited came with the condition that a certain age group was measured, not just the entire audience, and if you nominate an article you better make sure you're not misleading the discussion. Since they were targeting young people also, that takes out a chunk of 18-25 listeners not cited in the referenced article.
- Outside of major markets - Seattle is a major market so we can safely discount this argument.
- I was saying in general radio has went in the direction of not doing local after 7pm these days. - I just, at random and as a random sample, selected the Denver market and checked all three talk stations there - KHOW, KOA and KFKA. Two of the three of them have local programming after 7PM. Once again, do you have a reference or source to back-up your claim that it's "common sense" radio stations don't have local programming after 7PM? Wikipedia is not a place for original research or "gut feeling" thesis'. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- those shows didn't have the uniqueness this one did - Wikipedia is not a place for us to write articles based on our opinions on the relative merit of things. Please don't insert value judgments into a discussion on an encylopedia entry. WP:FANCRUFT. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources, from the show's formation to it's cancellation, as shown in the citation provided by Bluecanary99. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The source I cited was 1, and the source - in turn - referenced one other (also, the source I referenced was reporting on the lack of success the show had). I don't know that 2 sources establish "significant coverage." Perhaps there are others but they are not ones I "provided." You should choose to make a solid argument about notability instead of a vague and inaccurate summation of what someone else didn't say.
- In any case, media coverage needs to be tempered with reason in establishing notability. From the notability guidelines: "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. It's laughable and a weird massage of the guidelines to push POV to suggest that a verifiable source reporting on something's lack of success is a golden ticket to notability. Failure does not establish notability unless it's done in spectacular fashion. This topic didn't spectacularly fail; it appeared to just shrivel up and die like many local radio programs that held this revolving door time slot previously.
- Further from the notability guidelines: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. --- note that this is not even a radio program so the above criteria must be even more rigidly enforced still; it is a basement podcast with an undetermined future that may be only until January - per the hosts quotes - and an undetermined audience Bluecanary99 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has numerous sources, and I was making reference to them as well as the one you provided. I believe there are enough sources to guarantee notability. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N - substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion Article fails standards set in WP:BCAST / Delete - Most Congenially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BCAST the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone I feel the article meets the standards set in WP:BCAST / Keep - Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you selectively sited an extraction from a paragraph of WP:BCAST that - when taken out of context would lead the reader to infer an intent not expressed - it is reasonable to be concerned about the neutrality of your POV. I don't believe the community will be able to weigh heavily your assessment in evaluating the deletion decision at this time.
- WP:BCAST the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone I feel the article meets the standards set in WP:BCAST / Keep - Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N - substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion Article fails standards set in WP:BCAST / Delete - Most Congenially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has numerous sources, and I was making reference to them as well as the one you provided. I believe there are enough sources to guarantee notability. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further from the notability guidelines: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. --- note that this is not even a radio program so the above criteria must be even more rigidly enforced still; it is a basement podcast with an undetermined future that may be only until January - per the hosts quotes - and an undetermined audience Bluecanary99 (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, as there have been no substantive replies by Keepers to points raised in favor of deletion, the direction of consensus seems to be in favor of deletion. Since we're not in a hurry, though, I'll leave it open another week in case that changes. Most Congenially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have stated my reason for keeping the article quite clearly. I feel that notability has been established according to guidelines in both WP:N as well as WP:BCAST. There are numerous sources cited in the article, ranging from the show's creation to cancellation, a period of 21 months (Jan 2008-Sept 2009).
- Once again, you did not make any attempt to respond to an actual citation of from WP:N that was holistic, as opposed to selective, and established this article as not notable. In the absence of your decision to address concerns raised by Deleters, it must be inferred you accepted those arguments as valid and are logically satisfied with the prospect of deletion. Once again, per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion; the facts as to why this presumption is invalid have been laid-out and remain unrefuted. The article will be deleted unless someone makes an attempt to address the actual concerns outlined. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My previous post was asking you to clarify your reasons for your vote for deletion. In your initial post, you state that "it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable, unless some reference exists that establishes it as having something that makes it notable". My post was arguing that as a radio show, TBTL has sufficient sources to establish notability, from creation to cancellation, and meets all the requirements of WP:N, as well at WP:BCAST. If TBTL were only a podcast, I may agree with your vote for delete, but TBTL has a well-documented and sourced history as a broadcast radio show, and that is what is included in this article. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion; continuing to erroneously claim that WP:N says 'whomever has the most sources wins' is disingenuous and does not contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. I hope you will choose to participate in a fuller, more honest and robust way. Until then, and in the interests of moving to a swift conclusion to this matter, I don't believe the community will be well-served considering your agenda in making the final decision for or against deletion, nor continuing a conversation with someone obviously intent on derailing the topic. Thank you for your participation. Most Cordially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from misquoting me. I have never claimed that 'whomever has the most sources wins' as you quoted, and am insulted that you would state that. To also exclude another editors opinion relating to the discussion at hand is also highly insulting to me. As you stated, "There is room for many different opinions here". To address the topic, constantly saying, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion" does not address my question. As you said, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption". So it is safe to presume that the article TBTL is fit for inclusion. I ask you, what specific reason is there to not include the article in Wikipedia, so that your caveat may apply? If you need help, the article ]
- (1) I did not misquote you. I used single quote marks, not double quotes, which are used to highlight phrases of special meaning rather than attribute a statement to someone. I will not be able to provide you additional counsel on English grammar in this forum. WP:AGF is a good resource if you are concerned or need clarification about personal attacks. Also, simple.wikipedia.org affords non-native English speakers an excellent opportunity to explore Wikipedia in a more accommodating environment.(2) Please see my note at the top of this discussion. Due to your decision to use personal attacks I am disengaging from this conversation and nominating the article for Deletion Review. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both single and double quote marks are used to attribute statements to someone. If you need help with quotation marks, there is this fine WP:NPA. I agree that disengaging the conversation would be best for all parties involved, before the personal attacks escalate. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate you making the choice to end your extended spate of taunts, veiled threats and personal attacks. There is room for many diverse opinions on Wikipedia. It would behoove you to learn to tolerate views different from your own. Wikipedia is a hate-free zone. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I regret that you chose to continue your personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a system is place for Dispute Resolution that I will be force to involve if your attacks continue. I encourage you to take part in this system, instead of continuing your personal attacks. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to your insistence to continue your veiled taunts, I am in the process of filing a civility complaint against you. Please accept this message as the required notification.
- I regret that you chose to continue your personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a system is place for Dispute Resolution that I will be force to involve if your attacks continue. I encourage you to take part in this system, instead of continuing your personal attacks. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate you making the choice to end your extended spate of taunts, veiled threats and personal attacks. There is room for many diverse opinions on Wikipedia. It would behoove you to learn to tolerate views different from your own. Wikipedia is a hate-free zone. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both single and double quote marks are used to attribute statements to someone. If you need help with quotation marks, there is this fine
- (1) I did not misquote you. I used single quote marks, not double quotes, which are used to highlight phrases of special meaning rather than attribute a statement to someone. I will not be able to provide you additional counsel on English grammar in this forum. WP:AGF is a good resource if you are concerned or need clarification about personal attacks. Also, simple.wikipedia.org affords non-native English speakers an excellent opportunity to explore Wikipedia in a more accommodating environment.(2) Please see my note at the top of this discussion. Due to your decision to use personal attacks I am disengaging from this conversation and nominating the article for Deletion Review. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refrain from misquoting me. I have never claimed that 'whomever has the most sources wins' as you quoted, and am insulted that you would state that. To also exclude another editors opinion relating to the discussion at hand is also highly insulting to me. As you stated, "There is room for many different opinions here". To address the topic, constantly saying, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion" does not address my question. As you said, "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption". So it is safe to presume that the article TBTL is fit for inclusion. I ask you, what specific reason is there to not include the article in Wikipedia, so that your caveat may apply? If you need help, the article ]
- Once again, per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion; continuing to erroneously claim that WP:N says 'whomever has the most sources wins' is disingenuous and does not contribute in a meaningful way to the discussion. I hope you will choose to participate in a fuller, more honest and robust way. Until then, and in the interests of moving to a swift conclusion to this matter, I don't believe the community will be well-served considering your agenda in making the final decision for or against deletion, nor continuing a conversation with someone obviously intent on derailing the topic. Thank you for your participation. Most Cordially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My previous post was asking you to clarify your reasons for your vote for deletion. In your initial post, you state that "it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable, unless some reference exists that establishes it as having something that makes it notable". My post was arguing that as a radio show, TBTL has sufficient sources to establish notability, from creation to cancellation, and meets all the requirements of WP:N, as well at WP:BCAST. If TBTL were only a podcast, I may agree with your vote for delete, but TBTL has a well-documented and sourced history as a broadcast radio show, and that is what is included in this article. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, you did not make any attempt to respond to an actual citation of from WP:N that was holistic, as opposed to selective, and established this article as not notable. In the absence of your decision to address concerns raised by Deleters, it must be inferred you accepted those arguments as valid and are logically satisfied with the prospect of deletion. Once again, per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion; the facts as to why this presumption is invalid have been laid-out and remain unrefuted. The article will be deleted unless someone makes an attempt to address the actual concerns outlined. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD discussion has, unfortunately, been derailed and sidelined due to your decision to resort "flood baiting" to push your POV instead of making a WP:N or WP:BCAST based argument. The AfD discussion is no longer valid or useful and the deletion decision will have to be transitioned elsewhere where this odd and rather off-kilter tactic of gangsterism can be weighed into the decision. Your anticipated reply to this is not welcome but I'm resigned to accept it. I would encourage you, however, to send it via personal message so other participants do not have to be subjected to this ill will. Most Congenially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can sum up your position for deletion for any newcomers, it appears to be this: TBTL is not notable because it is a canceled radio show, but the typical guidelines to establish notability for a radio show do not apply, because it is now a podcast. Is this correct? Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not correct. Please choose not to attribute arguments to me I have not made as a veiled attempt at personal attack. Please review WP:NPA. Thanks. Most Cordially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable" as well as "note that this is not even a radio program so the above criteria must be even more rigidly enforced still" are statements you made that TBTL is not a radio program, but a podcast. "Failure does not establish notability unless it's done in spectacular fashion. This topic didn't spectacularly fail; it appeared to just shrivel up and die like many local radio programs that held this revolving door time slot previously. " was part of a statement in your argument that TBTL's cancellation as a radio show makes it non-notable. My comment was only asking you to clarify your arguments for deletion for any newcomers to the discussion. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Intentional de-contextualization of quotes with the intent to malign the quoted or nuance the discussion is a personal attack. I would kindly ask you to make the choice to stop personal attacks. There is room for many different opinions here. Thanks. Most Cordially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All quotes were evident in context, and clearly taken from the above discussion. I was asking for clarification on some of your conflicting statements. If you could please clarify exactly why the article TBTL is not suitable for inclusion into wikipedia, I would be grateful, and I'm sure any newcomers to the discussion would be as well. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my note at the top of this discussion. Due to your decision to use personal attacks I am disengaging from this conversation and nominating the article for Deletion Review. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to your personal attacks against be, I agree. Deletion Review is the best course of action. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate you making the choice to end your extended spate of taunts, veiled threats and personal attacks. There is room for many diverse opinions on Wikipedia. It would behoove you to learn to tolerate views different from your own. Wikipedia is a hate-free zone. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I regret that you chose to continue your personal attacks against me. Wikipedia has a system is place for Dispute Resolution that I will be force to involve if your attacks continue. I encourage you to take part in this system, instead of continuing your personal attacks. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate you making the choice to end your extended spate of taunts, veiled threats and personal attacks. There is room for many diverse opinions on Wikipedia. It would behoove you to learn to tolerate views different from your own. Wikipedia is a hate-free zone. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to your personal attacks against be, I agree. Deletion Review is the best course of action. Regretfully, Nathalmad (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my note at the top of this discussion. Due to your decision to use personal attacks I am disengaging from this conversation and nominating the article for Deletion Review. Thanks. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All quotes were evident in context, and clearly taken from the above discussion. I was asking for clarification on some of your conflicting statements. If you could please clarify exactly why the article TBTL is not suitable for inclusion into wikipedia, I would be grateful, and I'm sure any newcomers to the discussion would be as well. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Intentional de-contextualization of quotes with the intent to malign the quoted or nuance the discussion is a personal attack. I would kindly ask you to make the choice to stop personal attacks. There is room for many different opinions here. Thanks. Most Cordially - Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "it seems very difficult to assert that a podcast is notable" as well as "note that this is not even a radio program so the above criteria must be even more rigidly enforced still" are statements you made that TBTL is not a radio program, but a podcast. "Failure does not establish notability unless it's done in spectacular fashion. This topic didn't spectacularly fail; it appeared to just shrivel up and die like many local radio programs that held this revolving door time slot previously. " was part of a statement in your argument that TBTL's cancellation as a radio show makes it non-notable. My comment was only asking you to clarify your arguments for deletion for any newcomers to the discussion. Humbly, Nathalmad (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not correct. Please choose not to attribute arguments to me I have not made as a veiled attempt at personal attack. Please review WP:NPA. Thanks. Most Cordially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sure, the show only drew 1,400 listeners on terrestrial radio, but it was averaging 200,000 downloads per month.[[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadmoore (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1 - Do you have a source for that (i.e. reputable news outlet / not a blog or rumor site)? Wikipedia requires all substantive statements be sourced and verifiable. #2 - 200,000 downloads divided by 25 episodes = 8,000 additional unique listeners. Fairly inconsequential. Most Congenially, Bluecanary99 (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it had notability while it was on the air, it still has notability, there is a precedent on numerous articles (lets try these articles on things that no longer exsist for example),
while mention of it as a podcast may not be notable mention of it being a radio show is surly notable.--Gold Man60 Talk 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retraction: Retracting crossed out section per WP:NNC
- Additions to Arguement: citing a source General Notability Guidelines.
- General Question/further arguement: It keeps being said that verifiable sources do not guarantee notability, but for the article to not be notable there must be a reason it is not notable though it fulfills the General Notability Guidelines, may I kindly ask what that reason is? Nowhere in ]
- per WP:BCAST: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a political scandal that resulted in the impeachment of the city's mayor — and a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage.
- WP:BCAST establishes two conditionals: (1) show is national or regional in scope, or, (2) though not national or regional in scope had some significant contribution to society. That it was "a really cool show" and "I thought it was better than other shows that air then" does not constitute a significant contribution to society, no matter how well-sourced it is. See WP:FANCRUFT. The presumption of notability, therefore, remains only a presumption. Article requires deletion. Bluecanary99 (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a Paper Encyclopedia. You do have a valid argument though as this is really a gray area it could go either way, calling in an expert or a few impartial experienced editors is a good idea. --Gold Man60 Talk 21:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't believe this ever passed muster the first time around. Deleting it now is a chance to correct past mistakes. Delete. Delete. Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.8.17 (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appears to have been covered in multiple reliable sources, thus passing WP:N. Cancellation of the show does not change that. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- per WP:N, substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion Bluecanary99 (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (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.