Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical Music Discoveries


 * 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   delete. Courcelles 17:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Classical Music Discoveries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is about a classical music podcast. There is no evidence that this is a notable podcast. The article claims the monthly audience is over 50 million people, but their website claims 27 million. There are no reliable sources to support these numbers and a Google search for this finds only primary sources and blogs related to the show. Cannot find any third-party reliable verifiable source and the author has provided none. —    Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 19:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as the original PROD-er (PROD-ee?) and per the reasons above; for a podcast with 27 million listeners as claimed there is a dearth of information to establish notability. -- T K K ! bark with me if you're my dog!  20:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I found one mention on a site that sells sheet music, and another from a local newspaper, which has unfortunately been archived and paywalled (paywalled archive here ), (Google cache of first paragraph here ). The sheet music site does appear to have some editorial control, although this may not be enough to qualify as a reliable source. Altamel (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - I'm pretty new to the AfD process, so I have to ask. At what point is discussion closed and a decision made.  It's been 5 days and no comment from the article creator or the user that was defending the article on its talk page, and no changes made to the article. —     Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's seven days until the discussion closes. Judging from the dearth of !votes on this nomination, the closing admin might relist the nomination for another seven days to try to reach a broader consensus. I'm leaning towards delete, as coverage of the article has been sparse.Altamel (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I notified everyone who had ever edited the article, and no one has come to its defense. —    Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 01:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete — Fails every criterion of WP:GNG, is messy and poorly formatted anyway. -- SamX‧☎‧✎‧ S  14:33, 3 August 2013 (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.