User talk:Somafmlistener

SomaFM
I appreciate your efforts to clean up SomaFM. The article will, however, need reliable sources which are independent of SomaFM. Archive.org mirrors are fine, but they don't really change anything regarding notability. The long lists of channels also fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's not clear why this level of detailed, routine info is in the article, since this is the kind of thing the website should host themselves. By policy, Wikipedia isn't a webhost. If you know of any reliable, independent sources, please summarize them in the article, or post them to Talk:SomaFM. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * To me, and apparently to users in 2009, it was pretty clear why this level of detailed information should be in the article. Specifically because by its very nature, the site is rare, and equally that some stations are no longer mentioned anywhere on the website. From a historical standpoint, it would seem useful to document these in the event that the service went down, or the web archive ever in future came under threat, which is definitely not outside the realm of possibility. It would seem strange to require third party sources when discussing the channel offerings of a radio or media service. I have trouble to think of a better source to cite than the site themselves regarding services they currently offer, and to use the web archive to show what they offered in the past. If you yourself could offer some ideas of relevant sources for a resolution, instead of saying that it is all on the original contributor to solve the situation if they wish the information they offered to remain, it would be most appreciated. I of course agree SomaFM itself should document this information fully on their own site, but if ever they do disappear and haven't done so, it would seem a shame if in the future people reading about the service were unable to find information on historical channel offerings, especially if it were readily available in the past. Yes, Wikipedia would seem to be a poor archive. However, Wikipedia claims it is an encyclopedia. For centuries upon centuries, physical encyclopedias and similar have played vital roles for historians and researchers trying to piece together a previously known past. Again, this would seem something that Wikipedia editors might be humble enough to consider for a moment. Some day Wikipedia itself might come under threat, control or become property of a large player in the internet space today. Moderation, and humility in all things. Also, I find it hard to consider links to web archive copies of SomaFM's site in the early 2000s "original research". By that token again a lot of Wikipedia itself falls under that category. I don't even want to think about how Wikipedia deals with the page describing Wikipedia itself, and how controversial edits and violent disputes are there. Somafmlistener (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

SomaFM updated
I think I may have helped clear up some of the issues at hand here yesterday. I've found three major, third-party, verifiable and neutral sources which back up many of the claims made in the SomaFM page, and also back up how notable the station is. I've taken these sources and turned them into proper citations and I've engaged Greyfell to take a look at them and I encourage you, Somafmlistener, to do the same. Hopefully we can all agree that the notability and verifiability claims are now solved sufficiently to take the page off to the CFD list and to remove the issues template at the top of the page. Ke6jjj (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)