Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake and Steve Show (2nd nomination)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake and Steve Show

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

Delete. Relist following a "no consensus because not enough participation" closure on the first nomination. This is still a single-station radio program with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:NMEDIA, and some overtones of ironic smartassery ("Since many residents of Tuscaloosa must arise early to sally forth and earn their daily bread"?) The closest thing to a reliable source here is an article in the university student newspaper — not a source that can carry a topic's notability by itself — with the only other sources being a user-generated chat forum and two random non-notable "facts about other topic" sites which don't actually mention this program at all, and are accordingly being cited as references for statements that the show isn't connected to those topics (see what I meant about smartassery?) A program has to have national distribution, not single-market college radio station distribution, to pass WP:NMEDIA — but the only other path for something like this to earn an encyclopedia article is to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing, which this doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 19:43, 16 October 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.