Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnaby Street (radio programme)


 * 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 no consensus. This article has been relisted a couple of times, and no clear consensus has developed.

I would like to make two observations, to be considered if this article is re-submitted to AfD in the future: 1. "Not really something of huge notability in the present day" is not an issue... Wikipedia has lots of things that are not notable now, but were clearly so in the past! The question to be considered in this discussion is: "Is there any evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria at any time", not whether it meets that criteria now. For example, First Geneva Convention was completely revised and rewritten for the future Conventions, but the First one was notable when it was first created, and so remains so now, even though superceded. 2. Whether other articles on similar subjects do, or do not, exist is irrelevant to this discussion... the discussion is about this particular article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Carnaby Street (radio programme)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cannot see why how this local radio show is in any way notable: the article's sources certainly fail to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment – If not independently notable, some content could be selectively merged to Manx Radio, which presently only has a passing mention of the program. North America1000 15:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the rationale of deleting this article applies, then in my opinion it applies to the vast majority of radio programmes on Wikipedia. The articles regarding radio shows on BBC Radio 2 for example, have no greater depth nor could they be described as any more 'notable' than the article discussed. Also in my opinion the description in the context of a local radio show is also flawed, as Carnaby Street has a wide listenership throughout the UK and overseas through it's transmission over the internet. It is part of the Category:Manx Radio programmes and also the Category:British music radio programmes, and as such fits the context of those categories. The article also conforms to the WikiProject Isle of Man. Harvey Milligan (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2015. (UTC)
 * When linking anything please use instead of – as it transcludes here, Cheers, – Davey 2010 Talk 01:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not going to give an opinion re. this programme's merits, but I think it is fair to say that most, if not all, BBC Radio 2 programmes have a larger audience than this is likely to have and so can be considered more notable, even if their articles don't necessarily live up to that. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the article, thought it very good and cant see why it would have to be deleted - other than out of cultural snobbishness. There are many articles on Wikipedia ranging from the cosmos to pornagraphic actors. Does that mean that whatever doesnt fit within a narrow spectrum (or a persons perception of such) needs to be deleted? I read many articles on Wikipedia an I am pleased that it gives information on such a rich mixture of topics. Keep the article on. T. Dench — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.217.65 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no conspiracy of cultural snobbishness on Wikipedia, nor the other way round either. I suppose you are the sort of person who thinks 1960s pop music is still being "persecuted" by the "establishment" while in fact being part of the very same establishment which does indeed still persecute other forms.  RobinCarmody (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - the issue is not whether the article is well-written or not. The issue is one of notability.  I struggle to find any authoritative references online, but some of that may be due to the popularity of "Carnaby Street" in general.  I did find a few somewhat bloggish (and probably not authoritative) references.--Rpclod (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Highly anoraky stuff, not really something of huge notability in the present day (as you seem to acknowledge yourself). RobinCarmody (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Highly anoraky stuff, not really something of huge notability in the present day (as you seem to acknowledge yourself). RobinCarmody (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Highly anoraky stuff, not really something of huge notability in the present day (as you seem to acknowledge yourself). RobinCarmody (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - It still conforms to the topic regarding radio programmes, and as I stated earlier is within the WikiProject Isle of Man.Harvey Milligan (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2015. (UTC)
 * Keep The article is actually an asset for Wikipedia to have. It would be worse off without it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   13:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but I cannot understand why this article is proposed for deletion. As earlier stated, I believe it conforms to WikiProject Isle of Man. In addition I cannot see why it is eligible for deletion under A7, A10 or A11. I whole-heartedly believe in the research I undertook to create the article, and stand by the content of it. There is no justified reason for its deletion, save a spurious and furtive supposed "reasoning" in the initial proposal. A proposal which I would argue, is wholly without credible foundation. Harvey Milligan (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015. (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong with this article, and I feel sorry that the writer has had to constantly defend it. It is informative, factual and legible. I agree with the comment that "Wikipedia would be worse off without it." No structured agrgument has been put forward only opinion. I see from the proposers talk page that he has a history of readily putting pages up for deletion. Unsigned !vote added by User:82.132.222.210 at 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these purported arguments in favor of keeping the article are irrelevant from the perspective of Wikipedia AfD analysis. The question is whether the subject is notable as evinced by reliable sources.  That is why I provided two potential references, that unfortunately are not from clearly authoritative sources.  I am not arguing for deletion, but I think that the subject's notability is borderline at best and suggest that those advocating on its behalf focus efforts on finding reliable sources and indicating why the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have not found anything sufficient to support notability, I recommend delete.--Rpclod (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - The notability argument is tenuous at best and if applied in this context would thereby, in my opinion, have to be applied to many other articles on Wikipedia (example:- The Morning Show (Minnesota Public Radio), Studio X, Dial M For Pizza or Jakestown). Such articles as those used as an example show the proposal is flawed within the context of TheLongTone's description as quote:- "a local radio programme" or Rpclod's argument of quote:- "purported arguments in favor of keeping the article are irrelevant from the perspective of Wikipedia AfD analysis. The question is whether the subject is notable as evinced by reliable sources." As those articles referred to in the examples listed, neither include any more reliable sources (if indeed any sources are referred to at all) nor can they be seen as being notable within the context of the contributor's argument; for if as he asserts Carnaby Street (radio programme) is "irrelevant within the context of Wikipedia AfD analysis", then this criteria must apply to the examples I have listed. If such rationale is to be applied therefore, then by virtue of the reasoning, the same rationale must again be applied across the entire spectrum, in excess of 300 Wikipedia articles. RobinCarmody's assertion that BBC Radio 2 programmes have a larger audience, and therefore are quote:- "more notable" cannot be applied, as something is either notable or it is not. Also he fails to supply any link to verify his comments. This should also apply to his contribution stating that it is quote:- "Highly anoraky stuff, not really something of huge notability in the present day." That is a matter of opinion as opposed to fact, and if that is a fitting criteria for deletion, then again such criteria must be applied across the entire spectrum. It would appear that the proposal for deletion was put forward without the proposer bothering to ascertain whether other Wikipedia articles of a similar genre conform to the reasoning. As someone who has written in the region of 100 articles for Wikipedia, as well as contributed additional information in an attempt to enhance many more (example:- Douglas Harbour or SS Mona's Isle (1830)), I would like to think I understand what does and what does not constitute an acceptable article. The article Carnaby Street (radio programme) fits the criteria for the Category of British music radio programmes, and is therefore notable within that context. It is also notable within the criteria for WikiProject Isle of Man. For the reasons outlined, Keep can be the only fair resolution to the proposal. Harvey Milligan (talk) 20:57, 26 July 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.