Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Radio Theatre

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. I don't think an argument that they publish books can be sufficient to overcome an evident lack of sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Radio Theatre[edit]

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

Radio production company of questionable notability, completely unsourced but for its own self-published website and blog about itself. Article was created in 2009, and has never had any sources added to it at all; notability was questioned on the talk page in 2012 by a user who noted the lack of sourceability, but this seems not to have been followed up on at the time (I'm not entirely sure anybody else ever actually saw the comment.) As always, a company does not become entitled to a Wikipedia article just because its own website verifies that it exists — a company must be the subject of reliable source coverage to get in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable notable for the applicable notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received mentions in several books and industry sources AusLondonder (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sources exist" is a good reason to keep it, but there's no evidence that's true. The two sources cited are clearly not independent; the article does not currently show notability, and unless someone does that, it should be deleted. KSFT ^C 03:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NEXIST Lack of sourcing in the article does not mean there are no sources. A search on WorldCat shows several pages of listings of radio audio books Colonial Radio Theatre has produced. The same thing if you do a search on Amazon. Barnes and Noble currently sells 29 of their tiles. The article could use sourcing and expansion, but WorldCat, Amazon and Barnes and Noble listings show this is notable company. Sort the searches by year, and you find that Colonial Radio Theatre is still producing in 2016.— Maile (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2016 (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.