Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabbit Amber and Cosi

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. WP:ATD argues for the merge, but not if the content is unsourced. Feel free to add mention of this to the radio station, but make sure whatever you add is sourced. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit Amber and Cosi[edit]

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

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

A radio show without sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources to clear the general notability guidelines. The article does not present a clear claim to notability, so it seems like a WP:MILL radio show. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I cannot see anything that supports this having notability in its own right, but it does warrant a couple of due weight sentences in its historical parent radio station article HIT 107. Aoziwe (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think we should merge unsourced info. The parent article for HIT 107 is mostly unsourced as it is. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A sentence or two about this show would be perfectly acceptable in the radio station's article, if it can be reliably sourced — but nothing here establishes that the show is independently notable enough to have its own standalone article separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 15:29, 10 November 2018 (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.