Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Geek Show

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. Keeper ǀ 76 21:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Geek Show[edit]

Non-notable local half-hour radio show. Prod removed without discussion. The article claims that it's "nationally syndicated on iTunes," but with only 40 Google hits [1] (not all pertaining to the show), mostly blogposts and none of them reliable sources, the odds that anyone's noticed seem dim. The only mention of the show at all in the mainstream media is nothing more than a mention in a radio column that the host now had an online podcast. Creator of the article is a SPA with no other edits. Fails WP:V, WP:N. RGTraynor 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete availability on iTunes does not establish notability. Verifiable 3rd party references do. This article has none.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ as I did find (and add) one useful reference from the Deseret News but I too would be happier with more references. - Dravecky (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, that's the reference I mentioned above. It doesn't qualify. The general notability guideline holds that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable," and goes on to elaborate that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content" and ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." A fifty-word paragraph highlighting the appearance of Deseret News staffers is none of the above. RGTraynor 03:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: All true, and I included the Deseret News article for verifiability more than any shot at notability. I'm very glad to see you searched for sources as all too many editors will fail to do even a simple Google search before nominating an article. I'm changing my !vote to Merge to KXRK instead. It's worth at least a paragraph in a radio station article that needs expansion, if not an article to itself. - Dravecky (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to KXRK is certainly appropriate. And yep, I agree that the first priority should be "Hm, let's do a few minutes of research, anyway, and see if I can find some sources" before automatic hack-and-slash. It drives me nuts to see articles AfDed three minutes after creation, when you know in your bones the nominator couldn't possibly have checked, and doesn't seem to have a problem with not having done so. RGTraynor 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect per above sounds good. not notable enough for it's own article, but might be interesting to someone in parent article.

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.