Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Rock Radio


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Energy Rock Radio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Internet radio station which lacks coverage in reliable sources. Other than a single press release, Google News has no hits, while a regular Google search results mostly in profiles in unreliable websites (i.e. Facebook). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject has no coverage in any news sources, neither are any of the shows mentioned. Only one of the sources listed has more than a single passing mention of the subject; some never mention the subject at all and therefore should not be cited. —Prhartcom ♥ 13:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Internet radio services are not granted an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA. An internet radio stream can get into Wikipedia if it's the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not entitled to an inclusion freebie just because it exists. And the sourcing here is not good enough to satisfy GNG; about half of it, in fact, is of the primary sourcing variety that contributes nothing toward demonstrating a topic's notability, and most of what's left is unreliable sourcing like Blogspot blogs — the closest thing to a reliable source here (which is not to say that it's all that close, because it isn't, but it's six inches closer to one than anything else here is) is an article about a person who hosts a show on the service, but which fails to mention that fact at all. None of this, neither the sourcing nor the substance, clears the bar at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2016 (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.