Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solid Gold Weekend (radio program)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Solid Gold Weekend (radio program)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC) It's a tight definition of notability if you don't consider a radio program that airs on multiple stations across the United States as notable. The only negative against the listing is that this is a new program. Other programs that are similar in nature have Wikipedia pages. --David100b (talk) 20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you show me some reliable independant sources that cover the subject explicitly? Adam9007 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  00:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Syndication to multiple stations is technically a valid notability claim per WP:NMEDIA, if it's properly sourced to reliable source coverage about the program. It is not, however, a freebie that allows a program to keep an unsourced article just because syndication is asserted — as with all Wikipedia notability claims, it's not the mere assertion of passing a notability criterionthat passes the notability criterion, but the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim. So until real reliable source coverage in real media can actually be shown, notability is not satisfied. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when proper reliable source coverage can be shown. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2016 (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.