Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Sorensen's REAL Country


 * 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 09:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben Sorensen's REAL Country

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this as an A7 speedy deletion candidate. It's syndicated so this makes just enough of an assertion of notability to where it just barely squeaks by speedy deletion criteria. However I can't find any coverage of this show to assert that this meets notability guidelines enough to merit an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  06:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as A7 tagger, no sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet the general notability guideline. --Inother (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A nationally broadcast programme, reviewed/decribed in media, references now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep given the recent edits by Shaidar cuebiyar - the article now satisfies WP:GNG.Dan arndt (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment if retained the article's name should be amended removing the capitalisation. Dan arndt (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep The article indicates some notability and has independent media coverage. It is notable enough generally. From what I see there are also sources that are relevant. Thus it is a notable and sourced article. It needs a good bit of work. But I don't think it is a candidate for deletion. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 10:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per user improvements since listing. I would also wager that some of the delete votes were the result of instant-hate upon seeing the spammy promotional image in the infobox. Well, I made it go *poof*. Pax 10:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.