Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Poo (radio series)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 13:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Poo (radio series)

Doctor Poo (radio series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

A feature on a radio show is not notable enough for its own article, in this case and in my opinion. At best, we have material that could possibly be merged into the presenter's article, but certainly not notable to stand on its own. Strikerforce^Talk 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG. It's hard to provide too many sources immediately as magazines like Ram & Juke are not yet available online. The Sydney Morning Herald link is fantastic and this interview in Roadrunner [1] is good. Both are indicative of other offline sources. There are quite a few articles in the SMH archives.[2] Doctorhawkes (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any requirement that our sources be online. If you or somebody else are able to dig into print copies of those other sources, then bring 'em on. We provide convenience URLs to web copies of the source if such exist, but that's not a core requirement of a usable reference — we are allowed to do no-url citations to unwebbed book or newspaper or magazine content. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient WP:NEXIST it seems to support GNG. Reliant on hardcopy material - perhaps limited WP:BEFORE. Aoziwe (talk) 12:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete based only on the current sourcing of the article and internet searches for WP:BEFORE. I'm not disputing WP:NEXIST in offline sources, such as here: [3] but I haven't found enough to convince myself it passes WP:GNG even with offline sources. SportingFlyer talk 06:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please keep. As member of the Dr Poo fan club (I still have the badge) I would value keeping the article, as very little now remains of the show unfortunately.

Unfortunately, that's not a valid rationale per Wikipedia guidelines. Do you have anything based in policy to support your !vote, please? Strikerforce^Talk 14:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our job to help create the media presence of a thing that "very little now remains of", by waiving our reliable source requirements so that people can publish their own original research and possibly faulty memories. If you want to make a fansite for it, then by all means get a Wix. But if "very little remains of it" in reliable sources, then we're not the place to rebuild its public profile. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2018 (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.