Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresh FM Top 92


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fresh FM Top 92

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Music award from a local station. While we include most FCC (and equivalent) licensed FM/AM stations as notable, we hardly include their regular promotional material. This is exactly that. No outside notability either. Shadowjams (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete These countdowns have two purposes to exist; act as a promotional tool and a very simple way to have station staff pound out 40-60 tags on tape and have a (insert holiday here) break. No need for this as information is solely of use to listeners in Adelaide, if that.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - never should have been an article in the first place, in my view. Highly unencylopedic. Jus  da  fax   08:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete plainly not notable. and not encyclopaedic. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is, in my opinion, clearly not notable. Here we have a list of songs that were picked (under an unknown methodology) by a single radio station. Per our common music and chart guidelines (the latter may not be applicable but it counts as a general rough guideline of which to include and which not to) this kind of information should not exist, as it has no encyclopedic value. Also, this information comes from a primary source (which is de facto deemed as not notable) and has not been discussed by other sources of information. — Ṙ  ΛΧΣ  21  02:19, 31 January 2013 (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.