Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghostly Talk (2nd nomination)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghostly Talk
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N. Energetically written but totally unsourced self-publicity/fansite cruft for an "internet talk show" hosted/produced by "Doug & Scott L" (?). No genuine independent third-party WP:RS coverage aside from a single WP:N mention. LuckyLouie (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry about the double vote. Never done this before. Can someone please tell me the finer points of notability on here? I have read all the documentation and feel that the Ghostly Talk article more than fulfills this. Again, we were contacted in 2007 by a writer here stating that Ghostly Talk was notable enough to have a Wiki page and now all of a sudden it is not notable enough. Look at the logs and you will see who it is who started the page. He was the one who contacted us initially. Please Help so this article does not get deleted. Thank You :) Gtscottl   06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Searches turn up no reliable sources that can be used to support an article on this program, and certainly none are evident in the article itself. If someone can point to independent sources that establish the notability of the show, now's the time to do so; otherwise, there's no reason to keep. Deor (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hello, we have added reliable sources to the "External links" section of the Ghostly Talk article. We have also put our full names on the page.  I would like to note that we were approached by Northmeister (talk} who stated that Ghostly Talk was notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.  Check the logs.  I also have the original emails from 2006 when he created the article here.  I hope this covers the issue though.  Thank You, it was a chance to add some more info to the article '''Gtscottl (talk 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep . Added a "References" section to this article.Gtscottl (talk 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) You can't vote twice Verbal   chat  08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete unless references establishing notability are added before the close of this AfD. I didn't find any, but I hope there are some. Verbal   chat  08:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability is established by having reliable (i.e. unbiased, trustworthy, mainstream), third-party (not your group, its colleagues, or its supporters) sources for the text of the article. An article will be justified only when your particular internet radio show establishes notoriety outside of the ghost enthusiast community and trivial mentions in local media. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, I will say, it has been justified for 2 years years here, now all of a sudden, it isn't? Gtscottl   06:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Of marginal notability but I think it meets the criteria. This is one of those grey-area cases where responsible editors will disagree.  In any case, the article needs major tightening, defluffing, and better referencing.  I made a start by removing the external links, see the talk page for the reasons.  The article could be 1/3 its current size and be better for it.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability has clearly not been established. I see only a couple of trivial mentions, unreliable sources and a press release. --Peephole (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Can you please point out the "unreliable sources"? I would like to know what is unreliable about them? - Gtscottl (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If they aren't independent and from sources considered objective, they aren't considered reliable. The key to article creation and content additions is basing these on citations to coverage from reliable independent sources. To information can be included from less reliable and primary sources, but the basis for articles is wp:notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep A close call on notability, but there is some and I think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just a little note, there seem to be only two major contributors to this article and one of them is User:Gtscottl, one of the hosts of the radio program.--Peephole (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: .....and there is an issue with that? When Northmeister (talk) contacted us to let us know he was creating this page he also informed me that I could edit and update the page.  I am not allowed to ask questions and request help to improve the article so it can stay up? Gtscottl (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note- If the article's origins are examined, I think most will agree that User:Northmeister seems to have created the page by the exclusive use of unsourced original research (and possibly a bit of ESP). - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a pointer to WP:COI to the article talk page. He seems genuinely interested in trimming this article down and doing what it takes to make it fit, unlike some COI-editors who are merely out to promote their agenda.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.  —Peephole (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete non-notable vanity page for paranormal radio show.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I only see one source which actually refers to the “talk show” and this is the show’s own website. This article show’s all the signs of being a non-notable vanity page. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2009 (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.