Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad Dog and Billie

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. So Why 11:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Dog and Billie

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

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

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

Poorly sourced article about a defunct single-market local radio show, along with poorly sourced standalone WP:BLPs of its former hosts. There's no evidence that the show passes WP:NMEDIA, or that either of the hosts pass WP:CREATIVE -- both of those notability standards depend on the depth of sourceability, not just the basic fact of existence. But Michaels' sole reference is a trademarks database verifying the "Mad Dog" nickname, not reliable source coverage in media; Holiday's sole reference is an article which is about her but is barely more than a blurb in length, so it doesn't represent enough coverage about her by itself; and the show is referenced 40 per cent to its own press releases about itself on Canadian media press release platforms (and furthermore, one of those is a deadlink and the other is behind a paywall), 40 per cent to glancing namechecks of its existence in articles that are not substantively about it, and 20 per cent to a non-notable blog. Which means that none of these three articles is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG, and none of them claims anything that would confer a presumption of notability just for existing in the absence of enough sourcing to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jdcomix (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this refers to a former pairing of DJs who worked together for a while in Toronto, but didn't leave much of a mark on their market. I don't see how they meet WP:GNG. PK T(alk) 18:21, 31 August 2017 (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.