Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FSN Baseball Report

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FSN Baseball Report

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

Originally prodded with "A search for references did not sufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I was not able to determine if the show is still aired. Fails WP:V and WP:N". It was deprodded to encourage a larger debate at AFD (see User_talk:Djsasso#FSN_Baseball_Report) as "A nationally televised show is very likely to be notable", Research shows there is no indication that the subject meets WP:NRVE. A search on gbooks shows 3 hits and one "Books LLC" is wiki-mirror, another is TV guide from 2005. I am not seeing this article passing WP:N. There are a number of blog and similar hits on the web which appear to fall under mere "flash in the pan", or a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nom voting delete, I usually don't vote on my own AFD's but in this case there has been no voting. This article was brought here from prod, for a larger community review. The subject seems like it should be notable but no support for the notability can be found. Several days on the AFD list with no independent support of notability given on a subject that should be easy to find support for if it existed speaks volumes. Jeepday (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The bar for notability of national TV shows is a low one. This is a pretty pathetic stub and it's difficult to waste more words in a rationale than somebody was willing to put into the original article, but it seems that this is pretty much a keeper on a per se notability basis. I don't think anybody is gonna cry if it goes away with no prejudice against future recreation though... Carrite (talk) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absent a list of some kind to redirect it to. It seems there isn't much one can say about it within an encyclopedic context. It's true the bar on TV stuff is low, but not this low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm looking at this and just seeing that it really is one of those low-tier shows that never established itself real well. It is also more an optional show for FSN affiliates to carry (meaning that they can choose not to carry it or put it at 3am in the morning if they wanted to), and compared to both Baseball Tonight and MLB Tonight, cannot be considered competitive by their level. This article, or even the FSN article itself would not suffer any loss by a deletion, and sources are few and far between except for 'it exists' hits in TV listings. Nate • (chatter) 05:17, 23 September 2010 (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.