Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Woody 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 delete. So Why 07:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Woody Show

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Only source I find that speaks to notability is the SFGATE source and that is barely. It was deleted in 2009 and I don't see much more here to show notability. Some passing mentions, some staff change announcements, but nothing in detail. John from Idegon (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep WP:RPRGM is a guideline here. The article has content issues, but LA is a big enough market that morning shows are likely notable; and [1] is some (gossip) coverage. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I removed about 50% of the article, all completely unsourced that was massively promo and somewhat in-universe in nature, prior to nomination. After removing that, there is hardly anything there, and much of what is is also unsourced and unsourcable to anything other than a primary, connected source. A piece of gossip, essentially one unqualified and one qualified opinion, do not really speak much to notability, do they? John from Idegon (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that it's a very weak case. A claim of notability for one of "Woody, Ravey, Greg, and Menace" would be interesting if anyone has one. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article sees significant sourcing improvement. While it's certainly plausible that a major media market radio show might be able to clear WP:GNG, RPRGM provides no automatic presumption of notability for a radio show just because it's in a major media market — the article has to demonstrate that there's enough sourcing to get the show over GNG, but the sourcing here is far too dependent on the station's own self-published press releases about itself and not nearly enough on reliable source coverage in unaffiliated sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:22, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:39, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one of many iHeart's 'cover all the bases' morning shows for markets who can't afford local talent. What isn't said at the start of the article is it pretty much bombed in 2006 as part of the failed Free FM hot talk format, and since then it's stayed on the edges of radio where it's not popular enough to merit attention outside cheap stunts. There just isn't the sourcing here to pass WP:N. Nate • (chatter) 21:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of local radio stations and shows around the country. This one being syndicated still does not prove notability. Reywas92^Talk 22:30, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.