Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Classic Metal 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Classic Metal Show

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

This is an article about a minor local radio program. The article has existed in more or less this form for a long time now. It has been tagged to hell but there is no sign of real improvement. All it gets is fan writing and vandalism. It is used as a coat-rack for a lot of trivial gossip and back-biting. It is poorly sourced and almost entirely dependent on Blabbermouth.net which seems to be borderline as a Reliable Source to me. I think it fails notability, quite apart from everything else wrong with the article. The claims of book coverage might be worth further investigation but I will wager that they are passing mentions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I suspect the claims that Blabbermouth.net is an unreliable source is based on prejudice for the simple fact that it refuses to conform to the mainstream, although if you dig deep the extreme small size of the staff could raise more genuine concern (although I am pretty convinced from long use that it seems consistantly reliable). However, the real problem with it is that it is notorious for covering literally anything relevant, regardless of actual newsworthyness, and the examples given in the article are evidence of just that; although it is actually kinda handy to have every interview from bands you like go through one source, it hardly nontrivial coverage makes in its own right. There is no real other claim to notability other than having gathered such 'controversial' statements, and besides, even if we call this nontrivial coverage, and ignore the fact that anything that does interviews will get passing media attention every so often with a decent one, there still isn't much else around in the way of relaible, third-party nontrivial sources. In short, a failure of WP:N. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable.--Bhockey10 (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable show. JamesBurns (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Wether B (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks notability. No significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources.  Existing list of notes is filled with links to blog on record company website which aren't reliable sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you get your facts straight. It isn't a blog. It is a news site, which gets hosting from a record firm in exchange for RR's banner at the top. They own the domain, but direct you to their chunk of RRs site via it. You haven't dug very deep, as the first link at the banner takes you to Roadrunner's propaganda own news section. Whatever other complaints can be made of the site - I've detailed the relevant ones above - it is as reliable as the mainstream in my experience. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment hosting details aside, there are still concerns with this source. It appears to be self published.  Are there other, more reliable sources for this information?  WP:RS tells us if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so. --Rtphokie (talk) 22:18, 3 March 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.