Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken fried radio

Chicken fried radio
Appears to be advertising or vanity. Is this podcast popular enough to have an article? - S. Komae (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a valid question. And a hard one to answer. What, in your opinion, would you consider the threshold for popular "enough?"

As far as I know, chicken fried radio has an exposure of at least 3,000 people worldwide. I think whether it's popular enough is a call for you guys to make. If your main issue is whether the tone of the article sounds like self-promotion (which it shouldn't be, since non-members of said podcast created this article), this can be remedied. As far as I can tell, everything in this article are laid out as provable or disprovable facts. —This unsigned comment was added by Kwidge (talk • contribs).


 * Fair enough. IMO, 3000+ listeners makes it fairly significant. However, in the very least, the article should have proper capitalization in its namespace, eg. Chicken Fried Radio, and needs to be wikified. I felt the article appeared to be vanity because the usernames of those who created it bore similarities with the names of the creators of said podcast show, which is why I called its validity into question. - S. Komae (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe most of these points have been addressed. The page has been thoroughly revised, and although it is not yet complete, the information is growing.  --Dairhenien 03:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I created the article originally, and I'm also one of the hosts of the podcast. I understand the concern about conflict of interest, but does that necessarily make an entry into vanity/advertising/insignificant? Is the Wikipedia deletion policy a guilty until proven innocent sort of thing? When I created it it was just a few paragraphs. I was surprised to see it so much bigger and thorough and put into more encyclopedic style. So it's agreed that it's not going to be deleted then? --RyanH42
 * AFAIK, it is not guilty until proven innocent; the AfD tag is simply to call the article under question. I will remove the tag; if there are further objections to the article it can be readded. My concerns have been addressed. - S. Komae (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)