Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapestry (CHFI)

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 redirect to CHFI-FM. Tone 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestry (CHFI) (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)

Article about a radio program, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA. The article claims that the show was syndicated to multiple stations, so it would be eligible for a well-sourced article, but simply asserting that the subject passes a notability criterion is not in and of itself an exemption from having to get over WP:GNG on sources that demonstrate its significance -- but the only footnote here is a deadlinked directory entry on a site directly affiliated with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which does not clinch notability all by itself if it's the best or only source on offer, and even in a ProQuest search for older coverage, literally all I can find is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of its parent radio station, with no evidence of any sources that have this show as their actual subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to CHFI-FM: Barely found anything about the radio show aside from being mentioned in this book. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecting to CHFI-FM sounds like a good compromise to outright deletion. Since there's one source about it. Which is enough for a mention somewhere, but not enough for a standalone article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2020 (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.