Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsjack

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newsjack

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Only trivial mentions in a few sources. One could maybe argue that the show meets WP:RPRGM simply because it was on BBC, however, the SNG states that "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone" and I would argue there are not enough reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I wouldn't be opposed to the show being merged into BBC Radio 4 Extra. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This certainly passes WP:RPRGM as a long-running BBC radio programme – there have been 24 seasons so far! It seems easy to find detailed coverage such as this and so policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WP:RPRGM is part of WP:Notability_(media) which is an essay, and an RFC proposing to elevate it to guideline is currently being opposed by 2-to-1.[1] I haven't evaluated this article for Notability, but a rationale of WP:RPRGM is dubious. Alsee (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'd prefer to see this rescued but I don't see how this passes GNG. Sources are mentions in passing or not independent. Ping me if any independent source is found that either provides in-depth coverage of at least one long paragraph (and that's stretching SIGCOV a lot); or that clearly says the program is cult/classic/significant/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BBC Radio 4 Extra#Programming. Fails WP:RPRGM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:RPRGM with improvements in the article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A broadcast from a national radio station that has lasted over ten years. I believe this now passes WP:GNG thanks to the source provided by Andrew Davidson above, and others including this interview and this RadioTimes article. Several sources have been added to this article since nomination. NemesisAT (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Award-winning, long established, major national broadcaster, several hosts with major careers in British comedy. I'm surprised this was nominated for deletion. OsFish (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2021 (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.