Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pacific Time (radio 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Time (radio show)[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 00:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-running, well respected ratio program on major PBS station, syndicated nationwide, with considerable audience. Close to 20,000 google hits and 90+ articles, including numerous significant mentions in reliable 3rd party sources [1]. It is a reasonably well-written, informative, encyclopedic article. There is no reason to delete this kind of material from Wikipedia.Wikidemo 00:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as it was a nationally syndicated show.Balloonman 01:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep, as per point 12 of the notability guideline for music. VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 02:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weekly radio talk program --Hu12 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable radio show article that is well-written, encyclopedic article, so I am going to oppose the deletion. NHRHS2010 talk 02:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable program on a major U.S. radio station; I can see no reason to prevent our readers from having a well documented page about this notable program. Badagnani 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Widely syndicated and notable radio show. One of the few national shows dealing exclusively with asian-american topics. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 04:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the reasons above. Clearly notable radio program. JavaTenor 08:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment. clearly notable would imply there are a multitude of citations to support WP:NOTABILITY. Please improve the article by adding these. as it stands currently, the article is failing WP:NOTABILITY--Hu12 08:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two isn't enough? I added two more. From the guideline, notability simply means "worthy of notice." The only nationwide radio show about Asian American issues is clearly worthy of notice. Further from the guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This is obviously the case here. Needing more sources, and lacking notability, are two different things.Wikidemo 10:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of sources used and depth of coverage about the subject by the source must be considered (as noted in the notability guidelines).--Hu12 11:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd exercise. One doesn't have to argue for the reliability of the San Francisco Chronicle, and Asian Week is a substantial news operation with robust standard journalistic practices operating dead center in its area of expertise. One article was written by Ben Fong-Torres. All four are 100% devoted to the show and/or its host and his relation to the show. I think we're done here.Wikidemo 18:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I don't see anything unreliable about Asian Week or the San Francisco Chronicle. Phil Bridger 16:44, 11 November 2007 (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.