Talk:Amongst the Medici
Latest comment: 12 years ago by 92.2.82.207 in topic Notability?
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Amongst the Medici article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notability?
editHow is it encyclopaedic to have an article on individual radio programmes? One very brief article in The Financial Times does not meet the criteria set out in WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Just relax. I use wikipedia all the time for encyclopedic and referential purposes. I found this article, got the information I was looking for, and walked away a smarter, better-informed person. The references to this work are many, just not through the channels you`re familiar with. Why don`t you find some, spend half as much time doing that than trying to delete this page!
- Wikipedia is not a historical TV guide, if something is notable, per the WP:N policy, then it merits an article, otherwise not. Contrary to your claim and as I mentioned in the proposal, I did indeed spend some significant time looking for independent, reliable sources via Google and the Google news archive. I found none, other than the FT article, but of course my search was hardly exhaustive. It's not feasible to look through all 2200 google hits; I just looked through the first few pages of results. Although, thinking on it, I should have used a notability tag and left some time for sources to be found. A proposal for deletion was a little draconian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- With some judicious filtering of google results by publication, I found some extra sources (that for some reason don't appear in Google's news archive), so strike the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.82.207 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)