Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The JBL and Cole 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn; no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The JBL and Cole Show[edit]

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

Web show of questionable notability, specifically fails the guideline requirements for WP:WEBCRIT. Clearly lacking mulitple "non-trivial published works" that are independent of the subject. LM2000 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I will allow time for editors involved to improve the article.LM2000 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After reading WP:WEBCRIT and doing a quick search online for sources which meet that criteria, I believe I can find multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the subject. I also believe that, as WP:ATD and WP:ATD-T say, you should have just started a discussion on the talk page or tagged the article rather than hastily putting the article up for deletion. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been looking for independent sources for this subject for awhile now and have not been able to find any. Do you actually know of any that exist or is this a case of WP:MUSTBESOURCES?LM2000 (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here is a list of professional wrestling sources considered reliable and unreliable. Wrestlezone, Bleacher Report, and Cageside Seats are unreliable or of dubious reliability. Some sources linked (such as PWTorch) make passing, routine, or trivial mentions of the show.LM2000 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't this have been discussed on the article's talk page first rather than throwing it straight to AfD? Considering the amount of work Bill has put into the article recently there's no reason to think he wouldn't want to work a bit harder to make it pass WP:GNG. By doing this it gives more work to admins when it could easily be worked out between editors. Antoshi ☏ ★ 01:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the kind of article that will end up back here at AfD sooner or later. The subject really just isn't notable... I don't think that filling the article up with unreliable sources makes it any better than just using Youtube episodes as sources as it did before. As I've said previously, I've been searching for reliable sources which cover this show for a few weeks now and have not come up with anything with noting. Perhaps I could withdraw the nomination for now to see what can be found for sources just in case there are some out there that I didn't stumble upon.LM2000 (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2013 (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.