Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.net


 * 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, move to bNet.  Singu larity  00:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

B.net

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete No significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Fails WP:N and WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I tried to find refs to establish notability last year but came up empty-handed; I found smoke but no fire. If someone finds something that meets the very specific reliable source requirements of our Notability Guideline, I'm willing to reconsider. My Google News archive search came up with passing mentions at best. -- A. B. (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * try these, from GoogleNZ. Grutness...wha?  00:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.  -- A. B. (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- A. B. (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Came up with a few more references, as shown here . Believe enough coverage to establish WP:Notability. Shoessss |  Chat  13:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- A. B. (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Came up with a few more references, as shown here . Believe enough coverage to establish WP:Notability. Shoessss |  Chat  13:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, and but move to bNet.  Esradekan Gibb   "Talk" 00:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly appears to be enough material from reliable secondary sources to expand and reference this article. - Dravecky (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I think reliable sources have been established. Lots more google hits if you use google.co.nz.  The bNet NZ Music Awards have been running for 10 years, and seem to get significant media coverage including television coverage, so I can't see how this can be considered non-notable.- gadfium  21:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but move to its correct name (bNet). Definitely notable within New Zealand as a major radio network (other than Radio New Zealand I'd be hard pressed to think of another network of this many stations in the country). Grutness...wha?  00:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, way notable in NZ. Vegetationlife (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep Reliable sources exist, notable.  Soxred93 | talk bot 20:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.