Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Love Doctors


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Love Doctors

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The City Link/southflorida.com reference is enough significant coverage to establish notability. For what it's worth the Palm Beach Post writes about these guys all the time -- most articles are behind a paywall however. if you'd have done a search you'd see this. riffic (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did do a search (I even said that in my nomination). I don't think that local news show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * why not? what is the scope? is local notability not true notability? Mind you The Palm Beach Post is a major paper with a large readership. riffic (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, none of the notability guidelines say anything about local news coverage; Let me remind you of the general notability guideline: a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. riffic (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. A single mention in the local news does not do much to establish notability.  A science fair at a local elementary school might generate a similar amount of coverage and that's certainly not notable either.  If this show were notable, more people would have more to say about it.--RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * but it has plenty of significant coverage.. see that link above, looks like this: "(Find sources: "The Love Doctors" – news · books · scholar · images)?" Go ahead, click on news, it won't hurt. Keep simply because this nomination is invalid, nominator didn't bother to do a good faith attempt to confirm that sources do not exist before nominating for deletion. riffic (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * and if that search link at the top of this AfD is too confusing for anyone, do this: click here and qualify your search with the phrase "love doctors" wzzr. What does this look like? OH YES SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES. riffic (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Comment While the number of hits in the Palm Beach paper's archives on the search string you've provided is impressive, the notability of this show is still not clear. These all seem to be coming from the same Palm Beach newspaper and are more along the lines of calendar items or mentions of this show when the subject of the article appears on the show rather than the kind of coverage that WP:GNG is looking for where the show is the primary subject of more in depth coverage. Its really difficult to tell how significant this coverage is since this newspaper charges for access to its archives.  Has this show been covered in any books or other newspapers?--RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * not just the Palm Beach Post, the search I provided also listed these other fine news organizations: TCPalm (E. W. Scripps Company), South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, and Bradenton Herald, so basing your argument against the sources "all seem to be coming from the same newspaper" is disingenuous, and incorrect. riffic (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the lions share is coming from this one paper and none of the other google news hits seem all that significant either. I'm not seeing any of the coverage "address[ing] the subject directly in detail".  They are just brief mentions of this radio program, little more than calendar items or mentions of the program in promotion of some other event that the article is addressing directly in detail.--RadioFan (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Because I'm sure you read each and every single article listed in these searches. riffic (talk)
 * not only that, but http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Glenn+Curtis%22+%22Rich+Dickerson%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=a also shows more newsprint wasted on the hosts. but you can choose to ignore sources as much as you'd like or keep stating your subjective analysis of the above to "not seem all that significant" while clearly not even reading anything. all I know about wp policy requirements is the ability to source, which I have proved beyond any doubts. riffic (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * I have relisted this, as the only additional comments arising from the original relisting are from the editors who commented in the first week. I feel that more people need to present their opinions here before a decision can be made --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 08:10, 26 May 2010 (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.