Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Emerson Show


 * 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. -- jonny - m t  03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Rick Emerson Show

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

article fails to assert why this radio show is notable outside the local area. No mention of awards or syndication. Only a single reference from the local newspaper. Rtphokie (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this unsourced fansite mess as unverified, unencyclopedic, and not notable. I'd support a shorter, better article about Rick Emerson as his career appears notable but the show does not meet the threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   —Katr67 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick look at the article's talk page will demonstrate that other sources -- from outside the Portland area -- exist, that editors are in the process of seeking them out, and that the show was once nationally syndicated. Furthermore, the nomination is in error: an article's subject need not be notable outside the local area, it simply needs to be notable. Not an issue in this case though, because as mentioned, the show was once nationally syndicated, and covered by a national publication. (I acknowledge that the article, in its current state, is in need of a whole lot of help. But that's not a reason for deletion, either.) -Pete (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment sources are better, in footnote form, in the article rather than the talk page.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, of course they are! I'm just pointing out that improving the article is well within reach. I will be working on that during the AFD. I hope you are open to reconsidering if sourced information is added to the article during that time. I'm not going to copy them over, though, until I have a good enough understanding of how the articles relate to the subject. -Pete (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, when properly footnoted references are added to the article, I will consider withdrawing this AFD.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have now removed a bunch of the fansite cruft, and there are five citations to general interest newspapers. I wouldn't say it's exactly up to good article quality or anything, but I hope this is enough to show that an acceptable article is within reach. -Pete (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Continually, articles like this are attacked and kept. This is nothing more than an attack on interesting articles, that the nominator(s) has/ve no knowledge of.  Just because you have never heard of someone, or their show, does not mean that they lack notability.  Also, the article clearly states that the show was syndicated from 1998 to 2001, and that it has a loyal world-wide following thanks to podcasts and streaming.  Obviously, the person who nominated this article, never read it.  TEG (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take a look at WP:ATTACK, let's focus on the article, not the editors. I've read the article and have questions about the subject's notability, thus this discussion.  Dont take it personally.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing !vote to Delete. Trying to improve the article has become more trouble than it's worth. -Pete (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (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.