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 merge to Vision Forum and delete the two lists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article has no third party sources (nor have searches turned up any likely reliable third party sources that may be forthcoming) so fails both WP:GNG & WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"). Sole source for the article is the frontpage of the topic's own website, referenced for the WP:PLOT summary (previously advertising sources had been referenced for the bare existence of the Audio CDs of the show), which does not in any case verify this material (elements of it may be verified by various subpages of the website).

Whilst claims were made in the previous AfD that this is a "highly syndicated radio program" and thus inherently notable, (i) the level of syndication (and other similar claims of popularity) was never substantiated (either at the AfD or in the article), (ii) radio is neither as monolithic as television, nor is its viewership as well documented, so an argument from the inherent notability of syndicated television programs does not apply, & (iii) the whole concept of 'inherent notability' is disputed (third party sources are necessary for creation of an encyclopaedic article, so attempting to decouple notability from the existence of third-party sources would appear to be unhelpful).

I am also nominating the following wholly-unsourced spinoff articles:

— Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. Crafty (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are several Google hits, but they are all advertising for the series, or for its spin-off merchandise, plus one or two blog entries. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge very selectively to Institute for Creation Research. Since the last AfD no reliable, independent sources have been identified and I am unable to find any. Based on this I do not think that the topic meets the criteria for an independent article as set out in the general notability guideline. The arguments for keeping the article presented at the last AfD appear to be weak, based on - so far unfounded - speculation that third party sourcing existed and unsupported claims of popularity. Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - or pehaps merge to Vision Forum? - though that article seems almost as poorly sourced and close to failing WP:RS and WP:V. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the article contains no sourced information, let alone sourced information relevant to the potential merge targets. Therefore any merger would have to be as a bare redirect. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect & Merge main article with Vision Forum; Delete the two subordinate lists. If we are to believe a primary source, this show is syndicated on ~500 radio stations across the country. I clicked on a few states at random here and each had between 10 to 15 radio stations. I see no reason to disbelieve what is on their website even though it can't be used as a reliable source for the article. I think that ~500 stations is fairly extensive syndication and the number of people who listen to the show is probably high enough (how many listeners would there be— 100 per station? 1,000 per station?) that the show meets our notability standards in the sense that it is worthy of being noted or worthy of notice. Now, while this notability very well may be true, we have a grave problem of verifying it. Since we can't verify, we must merge the basic facts to a small section of the parent article on the organization that creates this show. Merging is valid, since the notability guidelines only determine which topics are worthy of an article, but should not be used to directly determine or limit the content of articles. Since appropriate sources cannot be found for this topic, we should consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that a large number of stations on the station map (maybe even as much as half, or even more) do not list a day/time for the program. That may mean that it is not currently in syndication there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would further note (again) that not even "the basic facts" are unsourced, and therefore not suitable for merging. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Vision Forum per LinguistAtLarge, for now. The subject certainly has the potential for notability (and could be argued that it is notable because of its syndication numbers, but that's shaky). However, there just isn't enough sources for a stand-alone article yet. This is without prejudice; I'd be fine if the article is restored in the near future if sources are available. I'll also be willing to complete the merge if needed. American Eagle (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2009 (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.