| Revision as of 15:15, 2 December 2010 editKatCassidy (talk | contribs)149 edits →2PR FM← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:31, 4 December 2010 edit undoWhitewater111 (talk | contribs)170 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</small> | *<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 07:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete''', not notable.--] (]) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', not notable.--] (]) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Hi, I was wondering why the 2PR FM article is being targeted for deletion, as I noticed the sources from the bottom were from major newspapers like the ZD Net, Penrith Press, and the St. George Leader. I'm just rather curious as for example when checking WSFM 101.7s article, it only has two references, both of which are from the station site itself, and the other from an announcers blog. On the other hand with 2PR FM, the last four links on the bottom were these: | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| When noting one of the opinions above as "net radio is not real radio", isn't this an opinion, and aren't the above four sources good enough to make this a notable article in it's own right? ] (]) 15:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:31, 4 December 2010
2PR FM
- 2PR FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Internet "radio" station of dubious notability. There are a few refs in the article, but these are mainly from the station's own site. Those that aren't are more about the station's creator, who is blind and has Asperger's syndrome. The callsign used is not official and seems to have been chosen by the station owner. A google search finds very little that isn't generated from the station's website AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- I have a few thoughts on this topic. First, however, I must debate the usage of the iverted commas around the word "radio" by the user AussieLegend. Please forgive me if I am mistaken, however, this reads to me like AussieLegend does not believe that internet radio is truly radio. Maybe it's not radio but Misplaced Pages has an article on the subject as well as a list of internet radio stations. When editing an article people are supposed to keep personal opinions out of it as humanely possible. Wehter or not internet radio is truly radio is a debate for the aforementioned article on internet radio.
- Whilst I agree that there are only a few references in the article, most of which link directly to the site the article is about, I have checked the artciles of three other radio stations, so far, all from the same area, Sydney, all of which contain only a few references, the majority of which link back either to the web-site of the station or to a web-site owned by the station's parent company. Does this also make the stations of dubious notability and should thus be nominated for deletion? The stations in question are Mix 106.5, 101.7 WSFM and Edge 96.1. KatCassidy (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Personal opinion has nothing to do with it, although my engineering specialty is radio and communications. Internet "radio" is not radio. End of story. As an engineer I can't give credibility to a misuse of "radio", any more than I can support "mtr" as an abbreviation for metre. As for the other articles, Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I can see where you are coming from with "radio" vs "internet 'radio'" which is also known as "webcasting" - no argument there. Would the "Other Stuff Exists" rule apply for placing this article into the catergory of "Internet Radio Stations"? Should the articles regarding internet radio be renamed "webcasting"? Or should I take that up on the talk page of those articles? (Please note: I have a bad tendency to sound like I am being sarcastic when I'm not so if any of my questions come across as sarcastic please accept my apologies as they are not intended to be so) KatCassidy (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I was wondering why the 2PR FM article is being targeted for deletion, as I noticed the sources from the bottom were from major newspapers like the ZD Net, Penrith Press, and the St. George Leader. I'm just rather curious as for example when checking WSFM 101.7s article, it only has two references, both of which are from the station site itself, and the other from an announcers blog. On the other hand with 2PR FM, the last four links on the bottom were these:
- St George Sutherland Leader: Rainman radio goes retro
- ZD Net News: Blind Music Whiz Starts Radio Site
- Penrith Press: Blind DJ Announces Plans for New Web Station
- St George Sutherland Leader: Rainman in tune with a memorable talent
When noting one of the opinions above as "net radio is not real radio", isn't this an opinion, and aren't the above four sources good enough to make this a notable article in it's own right? Whitewater111 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Categories: