Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew and Mike (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 redirect to WRIF. MBisanz talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew and Mike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Article about a single-station local radio program with no evidence of notability per WP:NMEDIA. This is sourced only to the routine and expected level of media coverage in its own local media about staffing changes, with no evidence of wider interest beyond its own city, and the closest thing here to a strong notability claim -- "The show had one of the highest difference in ratings of other shows in major market radio" -- is both unsourced and difficult to parse. As always, a radio show doesn't get a Wikipedia article just because you claim something noteworthy about it -- it gets a Wikipedia article when you can reliably source something noteworthy about it. But all the sources here are sitting on things like "new guy joins staff" and "old guy leaves staff", with no sources for whatever the hell "highest difference in ratings" is supposed to mean. (Article was kept in the original discussion in 2008; however, NMEDIA is much stricter in 2016 about what it takes for a radio program to be considered notable enough for an article than it was a decade ago.) Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:05, 17 December 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.