Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Maxwell Show (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. henrik • talk  13:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Maxwell Show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. Local radio show no longer on the air. General lack of regional and/or national coverage outside of Cleveland radio market. If trimmed, most of article's content can be moved to WMMS where show spent 5 of its 6 years on air. Article has been tagged for notability since November 2011. Levdr1 lostpassword ( talk ) 04:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - article was already deleted once before.  Levdr1 lostpassword  ( talk ) 04:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep there are enough citations to reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. While many of those sources are local, controversy generated by this show has generated coverage beyond.  Article appears to have been improved significnatly over the version that was deleted after the first AFD.  The fact that the show is no longer on the air is not relavant here, notability is not temporary.RadioFan (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep See WP:LOCALFAME states that "because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable."--SportsMaster (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment worth noting that WP:LOCALFAME is an essay, not Wikipedia policy. It doesn't mean that the subject is notable, but local coverage also mean that the subject is notable.  A subject with such a concentration of local coverage is going to bring out some extra  notability scrutiny.  I still think this subject has meet WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - passed WP:GNG, has significant coverage by verifiable, reliable secondary sources. Achowat (talk) 05:17, 13 February 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.