Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Points West (radio program)

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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Points West (radio program)

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

non-notable radio program as there is not sufficient sources. Tavix | Talk 15:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A CBC Radio One show. Would in itself be considered a reliable source and evidence of notability when persons are featured on it. --Oakshade (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't source a wikipedia article as a reliable source. Do you have any third party sources to back up your claim of notability? Tavix | Talk 02:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all significant reliable sources are going to have significant reliable sources about them. Even the heading of WP:NOTABILITY states it should be handled "with common sense and the occasional exception." If WP:IAR is used sometimes, this is a common sense time to employ it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are misrepresenting WP:IAR because you can't find a reliable source to back up the claim! Per WP:RS "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". This article doesn't have any reliable, third-party, published sources and per WP:N articles that do not have reliable sources for the can be determined non-notable. Tavix | Talk 13:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how you conjured up a misrepresentation of WP:IAR. Quite the personal attack. The topic is considered a reliable source per WP:RS. It's common sense that a reliable source is a notable topic. It's a common sense reason to employ WP:IAR. It's already clear that I can't find reliable sources about this reliable source. That's why IAR is being used. Tavix, I'm sorry you're angry that somebody is using it in your AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are misrepresenting WP:IAR just so you can use your topic as a reliable source. That isn't a common sense reason, and you don't have anything to back it up besides vague references to the WP:RS. Show me in WP:RS that a Wikipedia article (which is what you're using) can be used as a reliable source for a different Wikipedia article, and I'll buy it. Until then, I'm sticking firm to what WP:RS really says. And I quote: "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources". I'm just not seeing that and therefore it is deemed non-notable per WP:N. Quoting again: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". This article does not have this. Tavix | Talk 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating the standard WP:N line isn't going to change that this is a common sense time to employ WP:IAR. It seems you're missing the point that WP:N is what I'm choosing to ignore. Repeat text from it all you want, I'm ignoring it. Never did I "use" the topic as a reliable source. Don't know where you got that from. I'm saying that this program is a reliable source in itself and I think that a reliable source should be considered notable, not that the reliable source is supporting itself. Misrepresenting WP:IAR? The full text of WP:IAR is : "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's what I'm doing. I'm sorry this is so angering for you.--Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not angering me, it just confuses me. This is not a common sense time to invoke WP:IAR because it's not a matter of improving Wikipedia. When something is not notable, it can be deleted. Deletion can improve the encyclopedia since we don't need every single radio show in the history of radio one here, just the notable ones. Just by saying that it is notable because it falls under the scope of your topic of choice does not make it notable, even by WP:IAR. Tavix | Talk 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I think that having an article about a CBC Radio One show that's been on the air for many years most certainly improves Wikipedia.--Oakshade (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think having an article about a notable radio show improves Wikipedia, but this show isn't it (per above). When this show gets significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, that's when it improves Wikipedia as a notable radio show. Until then, it's non-notable spam. Tavix | Talk 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is there nothing about the article that looks like spam and it looks like a normal strait-forward article about a radio program, but you've made quite the personal attack on administrator Bearcat for creating spam. Unless you can provide evidence that Bearcat somehow has a conflict of interest with this program, I would suggest striking that "spam" charge. --Oakshade (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One comment was moved to the Talk page. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Joe Chill; WP:IAR is not applicable there. Whytye (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IAR applies only in extraordinary cases and only when there is a clear concensus that Wikipedia would be better off if the rules were ignored in that case. There is no concesus here. Even with IAR, references are not optional RadioFan (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Long-running show on a major network--to my mind, inherently notable. Blueboy 96 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to back up your argument? Tavix | Talk 23:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the air since at least 2006, per the Internet Archive. Blueboy 96 21:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provincial-wide programme on CBC Radio One, said to be BC's top afternoon radio show. GoogleSearch WP:NMEDIA#Programming DoubleBlue (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Double blue, Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 13 October 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.