Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal radio shows


 * 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. Defaults to keep. I note the article is in much better shape than it was a month or two ago, well done to the editors involved for that. Jenks24 (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Paranormal radio shows

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost wholly unsourced despite being cited as needing sources since 2011. Lack of sourcing or wikilinks means there is no demonstrated notability for 99% of this. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 22:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm going to cut all the unsourced and un-wikilinked content so notability of what remains can be evaluated. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 22:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I wouldn't say that the body of the article was "almost wholly unsourced." Kinda stubby; but cites 3 sources, 2 of which appear to be pretty good quality. The problem with the article was the spammy, mostly unsourced, un wiki-linked list of "notable" examples. Any such article that starts with a definition of a genra followed by a list of examples attracts unsourced spam like this.  For non paranormal examples take a look at (some historical versions of) unseen character, sitcom, and similar articles.  The solution is to cut the spam, (as  did) and keep the article on watchlists to prevent it from growing again. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've completely removed the list of "notable" examples (many of which were not-so-notable), and expanded the history some with another source I found. I would urge the nominator to re-evaluate the cleaned up article on a genera of programming. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I started cleanup after nominating it. If others want to continue improving the article I'm open to it staying. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 16:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:49, 8 November 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.