Content deleted Content added
Scientizzle (talk | contribs) fix the fix |
Scientizzle (talk | contribs) re |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*'''Comment''' This, to me, appears to be a [[WP:POINT]] nomination. {{user|NightRider63}} is currently defending his or her articles on internet radio stations [[DHMRO]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHMRO|AfD]]) & [[207 Live]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/207 Live|AfD]]). I have no current opinion on whether this subject merits an article. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
*'''Comment''' This, to me, appears to be a [[WP:POINT]] nomination. {{user|NightRider63}} is currently defending his or her articles on internet radio stations [[DHMRO]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHMRO|AfD]]) & [[207 Live]] ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/207 Live|AfD]]). I have no current opinion on whether this subject merits an article. — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
**'''Comment''' It is not a [[WP:POINT]], I am just stating that If one is not valid, with sources, then this article with many others is not valid, when this has no outside sources, nor does this one establish notability.--[[User:NightRider63|NightRider63]] 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
**'''Comment''' It is not a [[WP:POINT]], I am just stating that If one is not valid, with sources, then this article with many others is not valid, when this has no outside sources, nor does this one establish notability.--[[User:NightRider63|NightRider63]] 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
***Fine, but the use of much of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F207_Live&diff=160164438&oldid=160160232 this comment] in your nomination didn't go unnoticed... — [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:35, 26 September 2007
Digitally Imported
- Digitally Imported (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete . Non-notable internet radio broadcast. Google gives "Sky.fm" 574 hits none of which seem to include reliable sources to confer its notability. Maybe even speedy since it doesn't even assert that it is notable. --NightRider63 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- DI.fm/Sky.fm has about a dozen stations carried on the iTunes tuner service. Unless someone has a better metric for measuring webcaster notability, I'd say that's a pretty good measure of it. Haikupoet 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I know of a few internet radio stations that have more than a dozen listings that are not notable.--NightRider63 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- If that's the case, what metric should we be using? Haikupoet 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am going to suggest that we set a standard for all Internet Radio stations. It's not like I have a grudge on Digitally Imported, But there are more networks out there, that are more well known, and cite third party verifiable sources. A few projects I have been working on here based on Internet Radio have gotten AfD requests or deleted all together. Perhaps we make one page with a list of well-known Internet Radio stations?--NightRider63 00:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable; also seems like a good time to withdraw the AfD pending further discussion. I would suggest, however, that presence on the iTunes tuner (or other notable tuning services) is a point in favor of a given station, so that (as well as the listener figures on Shoutcast, however you wish to interpret them) is a good place to start. Haikupoet 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This, to me, appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. NightRider63 (talk · contribs) is currently defending his or her articles on internet radio stations DHMRO (AfD) & 207 Live (AfD). I have no current opinion on whether this subject merits an article. — Scientizzle 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is not a WP:POINT, I am just stating that If one is not valid, with sources, then this article with many others is not valid, when this has no outside sources, nor does this one establish notability.--NightRider63 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, but the use of much of this comment in your nomination didn't go unnoticed... — Scientizzle 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It is not a WP:POINT, I am just stating that If one is not valid, with sources, then this article with many others is not valid, when this has no outside sources, nor does this one establish notability.--NightRider63 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)