Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitally Imported


 * 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 delete. The article doesn't really go out of it's way to establish importance or notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Allow me to better explain my decision. There are actually 3 keeps, 2 comments and one delete here. However, if you look at the keeps, the first was that it is carried on the iTunes tuner service, and that this is a good metric for notability. However, I couldn't really see where there is consensus that this is something that is a good enough metric for determining a station is notable - one other contributor agreed with Haikupoet, and to be frank this doesn't form consensus. The other keep was that there is 64,000 hits for DI.fm... but no explanation of what was being searched on, so I couldn't verify this info. The other two comments were totally non-committal.
 * One thing I might mention is that it looks like this wasn't submitted properly to AFD... thus, probably a good idea for me to list on DRV. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Digitally Imported

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Non-notable internet radio broadcast. Google gives "Sky.fm" 574 hits none of which seem to include reliable sources to confer its notability. Maybe even speedy since it doesn't even assert that it is notable. --NightRider63 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Comment I know of a few internet radio stations that have more than a dozen listings that are not notable.--NightRider63 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- DI.fm/Sky.fm has about a dozen stations carried on the iTunes tuner service. Unless someone has a better metric for measuring webcaster notability, I'd say that's a pretty good measure of it. Haikupoet 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, what metric should we be using? Haikupoet 20:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going to suggest that we set a standard for all Internet Radio stations. It's not like I have a grudge on Digitally Imported, But there are more networks out there, that are more well known, and cite third party verifiable sources. A few projects I have been working on here based on Internet Radio have gotten AfD requests or deleted all together. Perhaps we make one page with a list of well-known Internet Radio stations?--NightRider63 00:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable; also seems like a good time to withdraw the AfD pending further discussion. I would suggest, however, that presence on the iTunes tuner (or other notable tuning services) is a point in favor of a given station, so that (as well as the listener figures on Shoutcast, however you wish to interpret them) is a good place to start. Haikupoet 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N and WP:WEB should be sufficient to cover internet radio. There's no need for an internet radio-specific notability guideline. &mdash; Scientizzle 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there really be a separate policy for dealing with Internet services that aren't strictly web-based, Internet radio being one? HTTP isn't the only game in town, protocol-wise. Haikupoet 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. When in doubt, avoid instruction creep. WP:WEB is simply a small extension of WP:N. WP:MUSIC could apply, too, possibly. Bottom line, if the core notability guideline isn't met (that is, coverage from mutiple reliable, independent sources), then a convincing case should be presented as to why the subject merits an article. The subject-specific guidelines act as a tool to help build these type of cases. &mdash; Scientizzle 03:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This, to me, appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. is currently defending his or her articles on internet radio stations DHMRO (AfD) & 207 Live (AfD). I have no current opinion on whether this subject merits an article. &mdash; Scientizzle 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is not a WP:POINT, I am just stating that If one is not valid, with sources, then this article with many others is not valid, when this has no outside sources, nor does this one establish notability.--NightRider63 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine, but the use of much of this comment in your nomination didn't go unnoticed... &mdash; Scientizzle 02:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. More like 640,000 results for "DI.fm"?  Just 20 seconds finds me what looks to be a decently reliable source... this isn't hard folks. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 08:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Haikupoet about metrics for measuring webcaster notability.  aphexddb 20:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless it does not assert its notability or has any outside sources see WP:CORP, and this is mainly edited by IP Addresses that Trace back to the address of the Sky.fm building that is a direct violation of WP:COI--NightRider63 19:44, 3 October 2007 (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.