Talk:Amongst the Medici

Notability?
How is it encyclopaedic to have an article on individual radio programmes? One very brief article in The Financial Times does not meet the criteria set out in WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 22:07,  11 April 2012 (UTC)

Just relax. I use wikipedia all the time for encyclopedic and referential purposes. I found this article, got the information I was looking for, and walked away a smarter, better-informed person. The references to this work are many, just not through the channels you`re familiar with. Why don`t you find some, spend half as much time doing that than trying to delete this page!


 * Wikipedia is not a historical TV guide, if something is notable, per the WP:N policy, then it merits an article, otherwise not. Contrary to your claim and as I mentioned in the proposal, I did indeed spend some significant time looking for independent, reliable sources via Google and the Google news archive. I found none, other than the FT article, but of course my search was hardly exhaustive. It's not feasible to look through all 2200 google hits; I just looked through the first few pages of results. Although, thinking on it, I should have used a notability tag and left some time for sources to be found. A proposal for deletion was a little draconian.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * With some judicious filtering of google results by publication, I found some extra sources (that for some reason don't appear in Google's news archive), so strike the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)