Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bathurst Broadcasters (2nd nomination)

Add links
From 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 delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst Broadcasters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bathurst Broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A clear fail of WP:NORG. Kept in the days when everything was notable simply if it was not a hoax... seriously, the prior AfD is an embarrassment. Yes the company exists, but so what? WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can't see how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surprisingly! Yes the first AfD was a bit of a joke. I too was assuming that this would be a no brainer delete. However, there are mentions of this organisation going back to 1936, eg, here, a lot of these are routine but equally some are not routine. There are a lot of more recent mentions. Some of the more recent more substantial references include:
Over all there are sufficient and sustained IRS available to satisfy WP:NEXIST to allow this current micro stub to be improved, possibly even as far as start class. Aoziwe (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoziwe: Good finds, but I am afraid they don't sway me. The first seems like (nonetheless) routine article about potential merger/acquisition, plus it is part a WP:INTERVIEW quoting involved parties. The second one, I am not sure exactly what it is? A politician page that is a partial transcript of some public / radio debate? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second would have been better listed as this government transcript record. It is a formal speech in the Federal Parliament. I was not relying on just these two but rather that the subject has been in the news in many dfferent ways since 1936. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if those are the best sources we have, they are still not sufficient. I agree the subject has been in the news, but in passing or as WP:ROUTINE type of reporting. Nobody so far found any sources that would IMHO warrant a keep. They exist, yes, but WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:51, 13 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bathurst_Broadcasters_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=888371812"