[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep as article has been significantly improved since nomination and now meets WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RantMedia

[edit]
RantMedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

fails WP:corp - lots of trivial mentions, lots of links to *associated* projects (such as a rock band that one of the founders is in) but nothing substantial that suggests or supports notability. I am also fairly surely this has been deleted at least twice before - or at least the elements that were stuck together to form this composite article. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the article PA1N, the station's zine. If the station is not notable, this can't be either.DGG (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, why can't you just CSD PA1N? It's a one line unsourced article that's plainly non-notable. Notability is not inherited anyway: if PA1N merits articlespace, it would only be as a redirect to a section in the RantMedia article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO, it's only a PARTIALLY unacceptable comment. Just because you disagree with my display of how this bullshit has made me feel about Wikipedia/deletionists, doesn't negate everything I had to say. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
Do they all get barnstars as well? (check out the bottom of my userpage) --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just you. You're obviously special. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was canvassed to be here otherwise I wouldn't be, so take this with a grain of salt (I'm unsure if CW put a notice on the pages of _all_ participants last time or only those !voting keep). Given that, this is a clear keep. Sean Kennedy really should have been a keep last time around (rather than a redirect) as there were entire article about him and various parts of Rantmedia. There are plenty of sources for this and they are in the article. If you have problems with the sources please be plain why the 10 or so of them don't meet our policies. I view this article as the some of all those redirects and a number of them are likely notable.Hobit (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked by another editor to look over this article please look at the article's talk page and my talk page one never knows where best to put things. I say KEEP. it needs improvement certainly but is well referenced and wikilinked and see no reason why it should be deleted. VOTE KEEP'. SimonTrew (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just out of curiosity, why are paper-based news articles that are obvious scans of the original and posted on a site (complete with reference of whence it came) not enough for a WP:N reference? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
    • They are fine unless someone has good reason to believe they are faked up. Heck, just referencing paper articles is okay, but having them on-line helps a lot (so people can see what they say). Hobit (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - latest re-constitution of various articles cobbled together from a bunch of non-notable components, the product of several AfDs and at least one deletion review. The "substantial" coverage on which the "Keep" advocates keep trying to lean consists of one short article in Wired and lots of one-sentence passing mentions in articles on something else entirely, plus lots of self-publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

    "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

    While the article does contain more than 10 citations, many definitely fail at least one of the quoted conditions, in particular the requirements of independence (i.e. not published by RantMedia or someone associated with the organization) and non-trivial coverage.
    Just for reference, I have copied below a list of sources identified by CelticWonder (18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)) in the March 2009 DRV:
Based on the sources in the article and those listed by CelticWonder (most fall in the category of "trivial or incidental coverage")—I could not find any additional coverage in independent, reliable sources via a web search—I say "keep", but protect against recreation (i.e. require a deletion review to rereate) per Thryduulf if consensus is to delete the article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I very much appreciate your inclusion of my references posted in the past, but those specifically were the attempt to prove notability of Sean personally. These would be articles about RM/RR:
₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
  • While all of these are independent, reliable sources, not all offer non-trivial coverage of the subject. The Globe and Mail, Langley Times (2002), and Exclaim! pieces offer only incidental coverage, and the 2003 Langley Times article is really just a short announcement. However, the Vancouver Sun and Computer Paper articles do seem to provide non-trivial coverage of RantMedia/RantRadio, as does the Wired interview. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Summary of non-trivial articles
  • Wired News (2000): article exclusively about the founders of RantRadio
  • Vancouver Sun (2000): article exclusively about RantRadio
  • Spin (2000): column entitled "THE FUCKIN' MAN" exclusively about Sean Kennedy regarding RantRadio
  • The Globe And Mail (2002): second page is solely about RantRadio and Cimm (also establishing a 5,000 listeners range in news print in 2002.)
  • The Langley Times (2002): An article about DisRadio.com, declaring RantRadio.com as "pioneers of industrial radio" and "the first to really get people listening to independent Internet radio", and goes on to include a byte from Kennedy.
  • Exclaim! (2002): "RantRadio.com has been particularly active in trying to repeal Tariff 22"
  • Computer Paper (2003): article exclusively about RantRadio
  • The Langley Times (2003): second page is primarily about Kennedy and RantRadio.
I beseech ANYONE to answer this question: What SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for a 10-year-running staple of internet radio to STAY in Wikipedia if this isn't enough??? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:RS guidelines. PKT(alk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rantmedia may have started as a single ShoutCast station, but it was an early one, and heavily involved in the radio copyright mess from a few years ago, coverage of which was included in magazines and newspapers. It may well not be important as a corporation, but it certainly is as a radio station, with a 10-year history. Its a (very) early web-only radio station that has now grown to 3 different streams, indicating a significant number of listeners. Add to that all the other projects under the Rantmedia umbrella, some of which have coverage in other media, and its notability is undeniable. It also has a large presence in the Vancouver scene, promoting local bands and DJs. However, there should be no problem putting all the personalities (sean kennedy et al.) under the same article, with redirects. Cheers!  The Steve  09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the bulk of the articles described above as 'non-trivial' do not feature RantRadio as their focus (mention in the Exclaim! piece is limited to three sentences), it is the subject of the Vancouver Sun piece (albeit a regional supplement) and another in the now-defunct Computer Paper. It's my opinion that these, combined with the few trivial articles (particularly the 300-word Wired piece), might just meet notability requirements. That said, I point to two areas that need addressing:

  1. Not one of the articles concerns RantMedia - in fact, the name is not even mentioned.
  2. As it stands, RantMedia references very few "reliable, independent secondary sources". In all but three, the references provided point to sources connected to RantMedia or the RantMedia website.

For these reasons, I suggest that the article undergo a major rewrite. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep keep if the article gets properly sourced before AfD close (See below): I want to put a few things out there for actual discussion.
  1. The large number of sources, together with the cultural cachet of some (Wired, for example; also, Exclaim! is Canada's only monthly alternative music magazine and has been for over a decade, while the Globe & Mail is Canada's NY Times), demonstrate notability, per WP:N and as noted by Victoriagirl, Hobit and BLACK FALCON.
  2. Victoriagirl's concern about a re-write is valid as far as I'm concerned: the page is about 80% unsourced promo-spam, and the article violates WP:NPOV. Still, as Wikipedia's rules say, if you think an article meets criteria but deserves a rewrite, feel free to wade in and re-write it. "It's notable but the article sucks" is a valid argument for immediately re-writing the article, not a valid argument for deletion.
  3. If, per Thryduulf's argument, this is a re-create of a previously deleted page, then this is a CSD or PROD and not an AfD. I'd actually be in favour of a CSD, as then Celticwonder could take the discussion to a DRV and get the deletion overruled permanently by more senior editors. That's always worked for me.
    comment: I actually debated speedily deleting this as a recreation, but as I am not 100% certain that there is no significant material in this article that hasn't been deleted before, I decided to allow the AfD to run it's course.
    You also seem to be under some misconceptions about deletion review - the editors who contribute there are no more senior than those who contribute here. Decisions here are not "overruled" - outcomes are only "overturned" if there is consensus that one or more of the following apply:
    1. There was an error of process in the closing of a debate, and that this led to the wrong outcome (e.g. if the right thing happened for the wrong reasons, the original decision would not be overturned)
    2. The facts that led to a decision have changed, or more information is now available that wasn't at the time of the original debate, and this additional information would affect the result (for example, if more sources are presented, but these don't address the reasons why an article was deleted it would not be undeleted)
    Also, even if an outcome is overturned this is not "permanent", there is nothing to stop anyone else nominating the article for again (although doing so shortly afterwards is frowned upon unless it is for a different reason or there is more information now about that materially changes the outcome of the deletion review). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I feel for Celticwonder, as it seems that nobody here will bother to explain to him, with reference to WP:N, how the article fails. Hobit has made note of this above.
  5. Unless someone changed the rules here in the past 5 years without me noticing, nothing in WP:WEB or WP:CORP is allowed to override WP:N, much less the three pillars. It's always better to disregard WP:WEB, WP:CORP and other such sub-guidelines, and just go by the main rules. (Why? We used to have a notability subguideline for porn, and got rid of it when we realized it violated WP:N and made Wikipedia look stupid.)
  6. With apology, by the above, "fails WP:CORP" shouldn't appear in a deletion nomination: Cameron Scott should assert "Fails WP:N" so we could have a broadly-accepted Wikipedia guideline to refer to.
  7. BTW, in case anyone wonders, yes I was canvassed, but I've also had this article (and the previous Sean Kennedy articles) on my watchlist whenever they existed. Contributors to an AfD are not meatpuppets when the article is on their watchlist, or when they have contributed to the article in the past.

There. Now time to go back to work.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - I just noticed that Celticwonder hasn't bothered to INCLUDE the good sources (Globe, Exclaim, Langley times etc.) in any sort of "references" section. Celticwonder, if you don't add your sources to this article by AfD close (about 4 days from now), don't go crying to anyone when the article gets deleted. I'll leave more on your talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - I must apologize for all the above. My arguments up there are completely valid, but unfortunately, looking again at the article, I have to change my vote. This article fails WP:RS and WP:V because Celticwonder didn't use the reliable sources in his article and doesn't provide the easily accessible links to them. Also, it fails WP:NPOV because the references that he does use are nothing but a pile of links to RantMedia. This article's topic passes notability, but the article itself fails all three pillars of Wikipedia. If Celticwonder doesn't fix it in 4 days, delete. but please don't salt - the topic itself passes WP:N. You just wouldn't know it from the poor sourcing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: AGTTH Your comments are GREAT, but PLEASE before you assume I'm responsible for those links not being there, refer here and realize they WERE there before others decided to remove them simply because they were hosted on RantMedia.ca. The original articles were 6-9 years old and in print (not online), so they aren't available anywhere else ATM. The links provided were clearly obvious scans of the original articles, but not counted as "independent secondary sources" simply because the link had "rantmedia" in the url, nevermind the fact that the CONTENT was independent. This guy is the one that started reaching in and ripping all the cables out, btw. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
They are still sources, and you can use them as references as the articles exist. In fact, any editor with LEXIS/NEXIS access (like me for now) can verify your sources as long as yu provide the paper, date, article title and page number in your footnote. In fact, you should have reverted whoever removed these. However, your article should use information primarily from these sources, not from Ran's website; and should use proper formatting and footnoting so that the average person can see that it's been well-sourced. You shouldn't use a "Rant in the media" section, as that isn't how we format articles, and it makes your article look like spam.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As AFTTH says, references to print articles are fine; there is not, nor shall there ever be, a rule that a reference to a print source is not valid simply because there is no online text available. Links to scans of articles, though, most especially scans on the subject's own website, raise concerns about Photoshopping and other fakery. Better simply to refer to the plain text in a standard manner and not raise such concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate your genuine suggestions to help the article (the first few I've received, really), and have undertaken citing the article. The links to the article scans had been removed by an IP (I had assumed wrongly before that they were removed by an admin of sorts, which seems to happen a lot), hence my query. Please keep the article, everyone. It's notable. Look at the page and help improve if you can, but it's getting there. See here for some pertinent notes & WP links. It becomes very difficult to stand up for something while standing by and watching it arbitrarily shot down multiple times. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 13:29, 16 June 2009
  • comment I see here that there are at least 9 related articles created (and re-created) by multiple editors over at least the last 5 years. I think this should say pretty clearly that a. The subject is probably notable and b. It probably isn't going away. Even if deleted now, it will likely be recreated soon.
What is there now, a single article with multiple redirects, is probably the best form to have it in. Maybe, just maybe, this one article should be left alone to avoid many more discussions just like this in the future.  The Steve  03:03, 17 June 2009 (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.
  1. ^ RantMedia history
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RantMedia&oldid=1136108775"