Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Lens

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 delete. Notwithstanding the possible socking, or at the very least SPA-ing going on here, editors who support keeping the article fail to adequately address the appropriate analysis of the sources provided by reddogsix, and thus fail to assert notability. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion, and for those new editors who may be disheartened by this discussion's result, I would encourage you to read the general notability guideline, and re-submit this article through articles for creation if and when the show garners appropriate coverage in third-party, reliable sources. Thanks again, and God bless! Go Phightins! 16:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Lens

Sustainable Lens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable radio show. Article lacks non-trivial secondary references. Article fails to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the addition of the reliable sources, this meets notability criteria of reliable external sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roo1237 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — Roo1237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment - So let's look at the references. They either lack independence or are very trivial. There are no in-depth articles. The article still suffers from a lack of secondary support. The issues in the nomination have not been addressed.
1 – Trivial listing from station the program is on, lacks independence
2 - ?
3 – Trivial mention written by program creators, lacks independence
4 – Trivial, part of a list, also lacks independence
5 - Trivial, part of a list
6 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
7 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
8 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
9 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
10 – Single line mention, far from non-trivial
11-35 – All these are descriptions of the interviews they have done, either from radio website or a newspaper listing, they are all trivial and/or lack independence. reddogsix (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability: I believe it is notable. With over 170 hour-long interviews, many of them transcribed, Sustainable Lens is making a significant contribution in discussion on sustainable perspectives. The hosts are a leading NZ Green campaigner and a senior NZ academic. They have interviewed many leading New Zealand politicians along with international leaders in sustainable practice.
Secondary references: I am looking up further external sources this week and shall add these as they come to hand. We seek your advice as to what would count. Is tricky when the only regional newspaper has a policy of not referencing what they see as the competition. 03:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desmond.andrewson (talk • contribs) — desmond.andrewson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - please indicate how this meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability. reddogsix (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As reddogsix wrote, we first need to know how the notability guidelines are fulfilled here; if this is as important a radio program as you state it is, some external source somewhere should have written about it. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ‘’’Keep’’’ "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."--"Sustainabile Lens" is a significant contributor to material and information in sustainability discussions. A quick google of "'Sustainable lens' radio", demonstrates a number of websites that reference Sustainable Lens as a source of information on sustainability issues. Many of the websites that refer to Sustainable Lens have now been cited. Furthermore, it should be noted that additional secondary sources do indeed reference Sustainable Lens, but an absence of related points in the Wikipedia article make it inappropriate to cite them. These other sources are both reliable and independent, thus fulfilling Wikipedia's notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simke671 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Simke671 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - So let's look at the references. They either lack independence or are very trivial. There are no in-depth articles. The article still suffers from a lack of secondary support. The issues in the nomination have not been addressed.
1 – Trivial listing from station the program is on, lacks independence
2 - ?
3 – Trivial mention written by program creators, lacks independence
4 – Trivial, part of a list, also lacks independence
5 - Trivial, part of a list
6 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
7 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
8 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
9 – Interview description, far from non-trivial
10 – Single line mention, far from non-trivial
11-35 – All these are descriptions of the interviews they have done, either from radio website or a newspaper listing, they are all trivial and/or lack independence. reddogsix (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks reddogsix. For the record, number 2 is a newspaper review. Also, although number 3 involved the programme creators, it is a quality assured publication hence hardly a "trivial mention".

We seem to at be an impasse here, the show is clearly notable in its context. It has a few in depth articles and a lot of lesser references. I know it is not the etiquette here to point to the very great number of articles with lesser evidence (and I know the response is that we are dealing with this one now), but this is a real show, attracts major guests (this week a Cabinet Minister) and has a following. The problem seems to be that being in media in a competitive market, it is hindered from generating the secondary sources it might otherwise deserve.

I note that the guidelines here are not absolute: "deciding...good editorial judgment and common sense", "Secondary...and to a lesser extent tertiary and primary" (the primary sources here are evidential without interpretation - the names and quotes of notable guests). On the basis of this common sense, it would be really helpful if you could suggest an alternative solution or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. Desmond.andrewson (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggestion while the show itsself does not meet the notability guidelines this article could be moved/merged into Otago Access Radio's article with a redirect from Sustainable Lens. This would eliminate the problem it now faces, retain the information, and improve the Access Radio article. NealeFamily (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sustainable_Lens&oldid=1138809164"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainable Lens, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.