Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SportstalkCLEVELAND

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. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SportstalkCLEVELAND[edit]

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

Not notable. Little or no coverage online (some passing mentions in articles on other subjects). No reliable sources found online (using Google News, Books, etc.), which may explain why there are none in the article to begin with. User who created page may have connection to subject. Same user has apparently tried to delete the page twice: here and here. Only one other Wikipedia article (Bruce Drennan, created by same user) links to this article. Subject's website apparently no longer exists.
-- Levdr1 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per my findings at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SportstalkNETWORK this at least has mentions. Plus, since this is one of the few places WWE allows its active wrestlers to be interviewed shows the WWE finds it notable.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A handful of mentions in online media (most, if not all, with different subjects) fails to demonstrate notability. There is not a single article online or in print which focuses on SportstalkCleveland itself. Also, while its programs may very well interview "active wrestlers" from the WWE, there are simply no reliable sources available to verify that claim (even so, that fact alone isn't enough to keep this article). --Levdr1 (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Levdr1 who correctly points out that trivial mentions do not make notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An assertion of notability doesn't count for scratch if it can't be verified by reliable sources (the organization's own website doesn't count.) Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (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.