| Revision as of 12:57, 18 September 2009 editMadeYourReadThis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers97,136 editsm Reverted edits by Jeandré du Toit (talk) to last version by King of Hearts← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 20:07, 18 September 2009 edit undoJeandré du Toit (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers18,693 edits afd-privacy|article=Radio Abbey|result=delete |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log|<span id="Radio Abbey"/>{{collapse top|bg=#F3F9FF|1=]|padding=1px}}|}} |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
| ⚫ |
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|
|
<!--Template:Afd top |
|
|
|
|
|
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|
|
|
|
|
The result was '''delete'''. ] ] ] ] ♠ 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
===]=== |
|
===]=== |
|
⚫ |
''The result was '''delete'''. The actual discussion has been ] but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). <span style="color:red">'''No further edits should be made to this page.'''</span>''. {{NOINDEX}}<!-- inserted using Template:afd-privacy --></div> |
|
|
|
|
:{{la|Radio Abbey}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> |
|
|
Prod contested by IP. was endorsed by Iridescent. Thinly disguised advertising. No sources despite several non-trivial claims and as noted in the prod there's no assertion of notability. So, delete per ], ] and to lesser extent ]. ] (]) 13:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small><small>—] (]) 13:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Delete''' only found a ] from a local newspaper, No claim of notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources.--] (]) 13:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Delete''' per the original prod. Even if it were to be completely rewritten to resolve all the many serious style, sourcing and tone issues, this is patently not a genuinely notable radio station but a "two guys in the basement" web channel with nothing to suggest any significance. – <font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 14:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Delete''' Web radio stations have not been accorded inherent notability in previous AFDs like licensed broadcast stations which broadcast locally originated programming over the air, and this hobby operation self described as "by kids for kids" does not appear to satisfy ]. ] (]) 15:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Weak <s>Delete</s> Keep''' as this appears to have been formally organized by a ''local'' governmental organization, not just a couple of kids in a basement, and did garner at least some local press notice before launch so it just <s>misses</s> squeaks over the notability threshold. I've done a bit of cleanup and added a couple of references to the article. <s>(The newspaper site is down at the moment but the articles can be read via Google in the cache.)</s> If an article from another reliable source could be found, especially one about the station after launch, I would change my !vote to keep. - ] (]) 17:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (flipped to weak keep) - ] (]) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''COMMENT''': The newspaper's website is functional again so the two on-point articles can be read without resorting to Google. The article is in dramatically better shape now than when it was nominated so I invite other editors to re-examine it and possibly find another reliable source to cement notability. - ] (]) 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::*'''Comment''' There still is only limited coverage in this single local newspaper. Not seeing the kind of "significant coverage" demanded by ], my !vote is !changed.--] (]) 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Delete''' Nothing to suggest it meets guidelines for Notability. ] (]) 22:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
|
|
{{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|2}}|Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log|{{collapse bottom}}|}} |
|