Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Picozzi and The Horn


 * 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. no prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Picozzi and The Horn

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject of the article appears to be a non-notable radio program. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. It might be worth redirecting to the main radio station article, WHCN. Alpha_Quadrant  (talk)  18:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. Clearly a morning zoo from the 90's only remembered by baby-boomer Hartforders and nobody else, the time has well past for this show.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a Hartford Courant Article about how Picozzi and the Horn organzied an historic rally at the CT state Capital. http://articles.courant.com/1991-10-19/news/0000210668_1_connecticut-taxpayers-committee-income-tax-income-tax-anger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyhorn (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this article. The comment above is untrue and the tone is condescending. The writer may not be familiar with the show. It was not a morning zoo. It was well known throughout CT and Central MA. It discussed political and current events issues. It interviewed senators, governors and even a President. It brought important issues to a younger audience that was usually uninterested in such topics.
 * The above source just lists a one sentence mention. The subject doesn't appear to warrant a separate article because it fails the notability guidelines because there doesn't appear to be any lasting coverage in reliable third party sources. It appears to be a plausible search term though, which is why I suggested that the article be redirected to the radio station article. Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  18:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Lacks notability in reliable sources, very straight-forward here. They get another name-drop in the Hartford paper when they were fired, and that's that.  Note that the above "keep" entry is (barring impersonation) by the subject himself. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2012 (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.