Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musical Starstreams
- 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 nominator withdrawal.[1] Article has been cleaned-up to verify notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Musical Starstreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
article fails to assert why this radio show is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as far as I know, an article failing to assert why it is notable is not a reason for deletion, unless the article is a biography of a living person. However I still recommend delete because I can't find reliable secondary sources that cover the subject substantially.-Samuel Tan 07:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 'cos of Paul Erik's new sources. -Samuel Tan 01:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the requirement for notability does not apply only to biographies. All articles must be notable and the article needs to make it clear why the subject is notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Sean Whitton / 10:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to Rtphokie, while the requirement for notability applies to all articles, it's lack of notability that qualifies an article for deletion, not failure to establish notability. An article about a notable subject shouldn't be deleted even if the article does a poor job of conveying that notability (except for articles on certain topics which are eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7, but I don't think radio shows fall into that category). Olaf Davis | Talk 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article needs to make it clear why the subject is notable and include 3rd party references backing that up. This article does neither.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But it's only a reason for deletion if a subsequent attempt to find references fails. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article needs to make it clear why the subject is notable and include 3rd party references backing that up. This article does neither.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no clear indication of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are literally dozens of newspaper articles, mostly from the 1980s, that have non-trivial mentions of this radio show. Just now I've added a sampling of eight of them. There's easily enough for WP:N requirements. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Is this nomination some sort of joke? Starstreams is one of the longest-running and most highly regarded ambient music radio shows on the planet. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawn article has been improved to the point that it satisfies WP:N, thanks to the editors who added references (there were none before), and located information about syndication (which certainly makes it notable). Please continue improving this article. Are there any awards it's won, that would also help cement it's notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2008 (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.