Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast


 * 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. Welcome to our guests. I have closed this discussion as "delete" despite the presence of many keep comments. This is not a vote, but a discussion to determine whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies. I deleted this article primarily because it does not establish "notability" in the sense that we use that term on Wikipedia. For a stand-alone article to exist here, you need to demonstrate that reliable sources (and you can click on the link to see what we mean by that) have written about the subject in a meaningful way - the idea being that we then can use those sources to confirm the information we have, and write a neutral article. While this article had many sources, I did not see any that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. The participants in the debate who pointed out the absence of such sources appear to be correct, which is why the article has been deleted. I'm sure that there will be those who want to know how to "appeal", you do that by going to deletion review. That is not a second bite at the apple, but instead a review of whether I properly followed policy here. Also, I can provide a copy of this article in someone's user space. The article can then be re-written, and reliable sources added. If an article emerges that meets Wikipedia's policies, the article could then be restored. Thanks for taking the time to read this far. I hope many of you choose to become involved with editing here. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Full Armor of God Broadcast

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

Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete My first thought was this was an involved hoax and then that it was a Christian something and then a heavy metal something. I looked at a few of the references and they are nutty and didn't clarify the issue and I couldn't bear to look at any more. A Google search doesn't clarify it either.  It's either a hoax, an attempt to sell tee shirts, a viral marketing scheme, or a combination of these, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though not the most famous syndicated radio program in the world, The Full Armor of God Broadcast is clearly NO HOAX.  They have regualar advertisments published in well known magazines such as HM Magazine.  The interviews with well known artists in Christian Metal clearly show the program has some level of notability.  They have endorsments from established ministries such as Way Of The Master (Kirk Cameron), Teen Challenge & XXXChurch. There are several stations that air The Full Armor of God Broadcast and which are easily referenced online. This show also has a strong Google rating. The Full Armor of God is certainly not a hoax by any stretch of the imagination.173.88.8.29 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — 173.88.8.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Article obviously not a hoax. There are 8 references to episodes of the show containing interviews with well known artists and 8 references to third party internet broadcasters who list the show on their schedule. Zeagler seems to be on a personal mission to have this article removed. He tagged the article for Notabilty, but when Notabiltiy (Web) Criteria was established, refused to allow tag to be removed. This action is a direct escalation in retalliation to prior dispute. Article does not deserve deletion.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Ivanhoe610fa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As I explained on the article's talk page, WP:WEB does not apply here because the broadcast is not solely distributed on the internet. (Though even if it were, we'd still need sources of information that go beyond the broadcast's official site.)  I've been searching Google and Factiva for some independent coverage that would help the article meet WP:NOTABILITY, but there is none to be found. —Zeagler (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Full Armor of God Broadcast is soley distributed via internet digital distribution by FullArmorRadio.com (including to terrestrial stations), thus Notibility (web) Criteria would seem to apply. It appears that Zeagler is overly knit picking this article. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. What is Zeagler's motive for scrutinizing this page so heavily?173.88.8.29 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.23.76 (talk)


 * Keep The Full Armor of God Broadcast is not a hoax. I have heard the guests that the Full Armor of God Broadcast has interviewed and know them to be true.162.71.100.8 (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — 162.71.100.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — 162.71.100.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's not about truth, it's about sufficient independent references to establish notability and to verify the article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No one has been able to provide sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable resources to establish notability and I certainly couldn't find any. I am willing to reconsider my opinion if anyone can find such references. Drawn Some (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are 8 references to internet broadcasters who have listed The Full Armor of God Broadcast on thier schedules. I do not see how it can be said that coverage cannot be found anywhere out side of its own site.  From what I read in the Notability Criteria, subject notability is not neccesarily measured in fame.  The Full Armor of God Broadcast clearly has a certain level of notability in that several significatly known artist have been guests on the show (8 references have been given) and there are also several internet broadcasters have the show listed on the schedule.  I realize that prior to User:Zeagler assertion of Wiki criteria that the article definately had too much excess information that could not be confirmed. However, content in question has been removed, the protions of the article that seemed too much like a press release have been re-written and adiquate refferences have been given to meet even minimum Wikipedia Notability (Web) Criteria, so article should not need to be deleted.  This action seems excessive and retallitory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanhoe610fa (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 May 2009
 * Delete. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; thus, the article fails the GNG. Appearing on a schedule does not constitute significant coverage, and the fame of guests does not affect the notability of the program. We can't be the first to write about it in detail; someone has to have done so before us, which doesn't seem to be the case. Deor (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." The Full Armor of God Broadcast article is about a syndicated radio show, perhaps only known on a minor scale but ligitimate none the less. It would seem that references to established internet broadcasters (via SHOUTcast) such as the ones listed should be considered significant coverage enough to establish even minimum notability of this subject.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those would seem to be the very definition of a trivial reference, a directory or schedule listing, maybe with a very brief description. "Less than exclusive" means, for example, an article that is about cat breeds and that has a few paragraphs on Maine Coons that discusses them in detail but also has sections that talk about other breeds as opposed to being solely about Maine Coons.  I have no prejudice against the subject of this article and if someone can show me the references I will be glad to change my opinion to keep.  The information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable and the subject of articles must be notable and we have guidelines to determine these things.  Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I can find references listed under several web sites sorces and my google search gave me several references as well. Besides, I know the show airs on several internet radio stations because I've listened to it on at least three of them. As I read this dispute, it appears that the arguement/rules keep changing. I'm not certain I understand the reasoning behind the delete action since every argument is met with substainable proof.70.214.26.128 (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — 70.214.26.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The word "Trivial" is defined by Webster as "of little worth or importance"... I fail to see a valid arguement of how a schedule listing on by a radio station could be "of little worth or importance" to a syndicated radio show which relies on radio stations to air it???Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has shown significant references according to wikipedia guidelines. Whammy (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are the references? Where are these significant, in-depth references everyone keeps talking about?    Could someone please post links?  Drawn Some (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not sure what kind of references you want. I mean it is not like The Full Armor of God Broadcast is as well known as the "Howard Stern Show", but in the Christian Metal, the show is very well known.  It does not have references from "MTV", "Rolling Stone Magazine" or "Clear Channel", but in it's respective area, the references are known enough to establish at least a minimal level of notability in it area.
 * The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this?  Kuba's hometown newspaper?  A Christian music magazine? —Zeagler (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep With regards to the Full Armor of God Broadcast, there are refernces externally to the radio show. I also feel that the proper procedures for checking references could have been followed better. It does appear to me that there is a underlying reason here for the attacks against this site. It has been said here about it being a christian thing, yes it is, but that is not a valid reason for deletion. How about we get a well explained request for refrences, explaining better what you think would be appropriate for these references. http://www.radioratingz.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1005 is the listing for the site with raitings going back to 2007. I don't see how a show having multimedia distrobution would make not notable. There are many many refernces and discussions about and due to the show on http://www.christianmetalrealm.niceboard.com. On the issue of it being a Hoax or Viral issue, how about looking through the ministry staff, look up those people, contact them, email them, see what they have to say about this issue. How about someone calls the office number in there. Overall seems that could be better ways to try and confirm refrences. Anakhchallath (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) — Anakhchallath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That the subject of this article is Christian doesn't seem to be an issue. I am the nominator, and I am responsible for two good articles in the field of Christian music: DecembeRadio and Satisfied (album). —Zeagler (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I often get comments from listeners about how they like the show as it is different, or asking "Whats the show that comes on at midnight?" If there's a Wikipedia page of it, that's a huge help, I can just reply with a link in the email. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me, www.wtgoradio.com or myspace.com/wtgo -Brett Estes69.160.193.252 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Keep' As Program Director for WTGO, a christian rocks station in Lafayette, IN (we're on Wikipedia too). I can tell you that The Full Armor of God Broadcast is a legit radio show. We air it every Friday night at midnight (Technically Saturday morning), right after our hard core music hours, as it fits the genre. I first heard about the Full Armor of God Broadcast when I was PD at WCRD, the Ball St. Student radio station. I began airing the show in early 2006. I have since moved on, but I believe the show is still aired early Sunday mornings on WCRD. I still download the show in MP3 format from the FTP server and drop it in the scheduled time slot. If anyone would like to listen to see if it is a real show, check out our station on Sat. 12:00AM EST. We broadcast online so anyone who wants to can listen online by clicking on this link http://www.christiannetcast.com/listen/dynamicasx.asp?station=wtgo-fm
 * Keep I don't come on Wikipedia much at all, but when I heard that Wikipedia was challenging the credibility of The Full Armor of God Broadcast I had to speak up. I first heard the show on WJCU in Cleveland Oh back in 2001.  This show helped me get plugged in to drug abuse recovery and get sober. I have been straight now for almost 9 years now.  So if you don't think that this show is not for real, you are wrong.  It helped save my life. Jeff (Cleveland, Oh)173.88.25.71 (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty much per Deor. I can't find any hits for this on google news and nothing that meets WP:N from a regular google search. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources seals the deal. And as obvious as it is, I can't not point out the obvious canvassing going on behind the scenes.   Them  From  Space  16:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." According to WP:WEB "web-specific content[3] is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria" and listed therein "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" There is certainly enough reference to such to establish minimum requirements for Notability here. As far as canvassing is concerened there seems to be more chronnyism present with the opposition to this article.173.88.44.186 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment  It is important to consider why this article has been nominated for deletion.  The original reason for deletion is “Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler”
 * I actually agree with you on this point Mr. Zeagler. This is important because the rules seem to be ever changing and this is looking more and more like a witch hunt than a disscussion for the good of Wikipedia. On this note, there still seems to be sufficiant basic coverage if not in depth and excessive coverage enough to warrant that this subject be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.  Would you consider removing your tag if all additional information goes through you before posting? There is no doubt that much of the information which you removed was questionable and you were right in removing it.  However, is total deletion of this article the best thing for Wikipedia, not to mention the moral principal that this subject serves? FYI -The Full Armor of God Broadcast has contacted DecembeRadio for an interview, H20 Artist management has returned the call and an interview is currently being scheduled with the band's manager Eric. Would this help establish some notability in your eyes?173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The first question required is what does the nominator constitute as “coverage”?  If the nominator’s intention was “is the show being played on other radio stations outside of its own website?”  Then proper etiquette would require the nominator to make attempts (multiple if necessary) to contact (by email/mail/phone/fax) “radio stations” (am/fm/satellite/internet) that list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule.  (contact information for radio stations are easy to obtain through several different methods)  Failure to do so would not be in accordance with the guidelines established by Wikipedia: Articles for Deletions which states, “first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the notability template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.”


 * Reply Coverage typically means books or articles that discuss the subject.  It does not mean an entry in a radio station's schedule.  Since radio stations don't put out books/articles, I didn't find it necessary to contact any of them.  The homework that I did involved consulting a search engine unlikely to miss a notable web source (Google) and a database of over 14,000 newspapers, journals and magazines (Factiva). —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The second question that needs more clarification is what does the nominator mean by “as it has terrestrial outlets”? Taken from the discussion page (Talk: Full Armor of God Broadcast) where the nominator also posted this statement “WP:WEB does not apply to FAoGB, as it has terrestrial outlets – "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." You need to show that FAoGB meets WP:NOTABILITY. —Zeagler”  From the statement “as it has terrestrial outlets” it appears that the nominator is acknowledging “coverage” beyond that of the internet.  In this case the motion to delete this article needs to again be questioned because the motion and discussion is based on “coverage” versus other reasons.


 * Reply "Terrestrial outlets" does not equal "coverage". —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Notability (Web) Ctriteria has been met and should be sufficiant to establish enough notability to Keep Article.173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The nomination statement’s use of “Can’t Find” does not demonstrate what methods were used and what the outcome was. Later comments by the nominator states the use of “Google and Factiva” however, no comments were made showing if the nominator attempted to contact radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) in regards to this matter.   In this case, if the nominator is looking for proof of “coverage” an email/letter/phone call or fax to a radio or radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) would certainly meet the criteria of “Necessary Homework” and present a more established level of credibility as evidence over “Google and Factiva”.


 * Later on in the discussion the nominator states “The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine?” Again, when looking at this statement was the “necessary homework” done?  Did the nominator search “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” or any Christian/Non Christian,  Music/Non Music Publications?  If the answer is no, then the nominator has to question the “Necessary Homework”.  Most libraries or newspaper publishers keep copies of past articles that can be accessed by the public.  Many of these publications possibly would not come up during a search (various internet search engines) and would have to be verified by different methods.   Also The Full Armor of God’s Broadcast’s email and phone number is public information and easily found on their website.  (This would allow the nominator the location of “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” should the nominator wish to research in that manner.)  In regards to  “A Christian Music Magazine” the article in dispute lists HM’s founder Doug Van Pelt.  Were there attempts made by the nominator to reach out to this magazine or to Mr. Van Pelt?


 * Reply I will not carry the entire burden. Surely those involved with the creation of this article, seeing as how they've admitted their connection to the show, have better access to this information than I.  Why haven't they come up with anything? —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is noted that the nominator has an established knowledge level of Wikipedia. This is proven by the nominators comment, ”That the subject of this article is Christian doesn't seem to be an issue.  I am the nominator, and I am responsible for two good articles in the field of Christian music: DecembeRadio and Satisfied (album). —Zeagler”


 * The fact that the nominator has written two good articles in the area of “Christian Music” gives several alternative options to deletion that would have been better to see the nominator use from the Wikipedia Guide prior to nominating this page for deletion:


 * (investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.)
 * (consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.)
 * (consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD)


 * Reply These were done. Since I had no reliable sources, there was nothing to rewrite.  The article was indeed tagged before nomination, although the editors were quick to remove the tag without establishing notability, and there is no good place to redirect/merge this article. —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Thank you for your comments.  I respectfully would like to suggest that you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_metal as the subject matter (Chistian Metal) appears to be in line with "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" (since the show plays Various Styles of Heavy Christian Metal) and would fufill the requirment for redirect/merge.  At the bare minimum "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" should at least be mentioned on that page.70.153.164.153 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply A mention at Christian metal may be in order whether this article is kept or not. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this program's importance to the genre? —Zeagler (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have chosen to post this message as a “comment” and not a “keep”/”delete” because I do not regularly contribute or discuss matters on Wikipedia and hope that this comment is not considered “Sockpuppeting”.  However, I do consult Wikipedia on multiple occasions especially in regards to music (both Christian and Non-Christian Music).  I do find it a valuable resource and think that efforts to maintain correct information are vital to the success of this resource.  In my future visits to Wikipedia, I hope to find this page here, as is, re-written (by author or nominator), or as a redirect as this information can be and is useful to those looking for a specific genre of music, radio show information, radio show history, or other reasons.  70.153.164.153 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — 70.153.164.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment This is getting utterly ridiculous! This it clearly a persoanl attack.  The chronnyism and misappropriation of Wikipedia policy and authority is just ludacris.  The parameters of this disscussion keep changing.  This subject has clearly established adiquate references to establish at least minimum notability. We are not dealing with a written publication, so how can written sources be required.  Multiple internet broadcasters have been established and confirmed. How coudl this not be good enough.  I can't help but continue to ask the one question that nobody is answering.  "Why is it so important that this article be deleted?"  What is the motive here to be so "hell bent" on deletion?? The opposition seems to be so caught up with being able to have this article deleted, they have'nt stop to think about if the should have it deleted. There are MANY exsisting article with far less references that have been allowed to stay.  This looks more and more like a personal attack.173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - without prejudice for recreation should it be demonstrated that the subject has enough significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. Until then, some of the verifiable content could be easily moved to either Christian radio, Christian media, Christian music, or some other related article. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Since there are several interviews with fairly well known Christian Metal artists such as Brian HEAD Welch, Demon Hunter, As I Lay Dying and Disciple and since the archived broadcasts verify these artist being guests on the show, wouldn't that in and of itself verify at least a reasonable level of notability for the show seeing as how the artists themselves have enough notabiltiy to have wikipedia articles themselves? The fact that the radio show is notable enough to have notable guests would seem to verify it's notability to some degree. I'm sorry but it still seems like this heavy push for deletion is more buracratic than logical.173.88.28.69 (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a credible program. This is great article and I believe it should stay.  I do frequent wikipedia to search for different things.  The Full Armor of God has been know for underground Christian metal radio for a long time.98.239.45.67 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I find it hard to understand how this entry is considered to be uncredible, as I have found this article to be helpful. The show is quite popular and well-known in the Christian metal underground.  I reference Wikipedia a lot, and I've seen a lot worse articles that have stayed for one reason or another.12.108.210.47 (talk) 22:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP I am a Staff Member at Malone University Radio. We Know this Article to be Accurate and Feel it Should be Kept on Wikipedia70.63.30.252 (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In regard to post by John Carter, aside from Factiva, how can significant coverage be established? Article has references to several radio stations & artists that appear on Wikipedia as well as to internet broadcasters who appear on SHOUTcast. Perhaps not the highest grade of coverage, but shouldn't that be considered significant coverage of at least minium standards, or if nothing less what about Notability (Web) criteria that is met? Please help save this atricle John.  I realize it did need to be slimmed down and it has been. My prayer is that you have a change of heart on this matter.173.88.28.69 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I realize that the opposition to this article will try discredit the supporters who are posting by asserting that they are not "Wiki Contributors" however many are wiki readers. I submit that they should not be invalidated on these grounds. Also as I have stated before the original issue imposed by User:Zeagler was "Notability". According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." Thus, according to WP:WEB which states "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: 3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" The Full Armor of God Broadcast article has references to multiple internet broadcasters who have the show name published on the program schedules on websites. This should be satisfactory enough to verify notability as per Wikipedia policy. Syndicated radio shows as a member of the media are not neccesarily known by much literary publication (the media ussually does nto write about the media). So the most valuable place for a syndicated radio show to be published is on the program schedule of radio staions airing the program. According to WP:SOURCES "Electronic media may also be used." So with that noted, according to Wikipedia policy this article certainly has a significant amount of Notability (which was the original reason for WP:DP.
 * KEEP This is the GM of "Fuel Radio" and "The Refinery Rock Radio", both listed on SHOUTcast, and we believe this article to be true and credible and that "The Full Armor of God" is a very sincere and true radio program and website. We have played the program on both radio stations for many years and are proud to see the growth and changes it has gone through. I would like to see this article remain. 72.87.12.157 (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP This article should be kept. I don't understand the deletion. Article displays 26 references that confirm the content. I have seen other articles with less references that have been allowed to stay. 72.69.102.159 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence, I motion for this nomination for deletion to be withdrawn and the article to remain on a probationary status pending all further charges to be submitted through the wiki contributors and admin present in this proccess. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm not withdrawing the nomination, and here's why:
 * None of the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY have been met.
 * Comment This statment is incorrect. All of The Full Armor of God Broadcast programming is digitally distributed via http://FullArmorRadio.com (as noted on the website). WP:WEB States "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:WEB does not apply to this article. It doesn't matter that the broadcast delivers episodes to its outlets via the Internet.  Some of the outlets in turn disseminate the show via terrestrial radio, therefore the show is not solely distributed on the Internet.  But even if it were, are any of the outlets respected (as called for by WP:WEB)?  Seems they're either small Christian college radio stations, low-power radio stations, or SHOUTcast stations (which anyone can set up).
 * Comment You originally claimed "Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)" Than you acknowledge that coverage is present just not good enough for you (not based WP:N but your own opinion.) Than you escalate the matter by trying to discredit the stations. Also, some of these stations that Mr. Zeagler considers insignificant small staions are listed on Wikipedia.. Is Mr. Zeagler going to go after them for deletion too??  WP:N "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." The Full Armor of God Broadcast is clearly not high profile, main stream corporate Christian Music Industry sponsored radio.  That is not the question here.  it is clearly and underground, counter culture entity.  It's level of notability is established within it's own scope of UNDERGROUND Christian Metal, not the main stream.  Many mainstream artist have endorse the show after acheiving a higher level of notability to honor the street credibility of The Full Armor of God Broadcast. The show is not known for corporate "sell out", thus it's underground appeal and notability.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An entry in a radio station schedule does not constitute significant treatment of the subject. Mere name-dropping does not establish notability.
 * Comment PLEASE REFERNCE THIS STATEMENT! WP:WEB "3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" I do not see where your subjective inturpretaion of this policy applies.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That bit about electronic media at WP:SOURCES means one can reference television or radio programs, etc. For example, I can reference this week's episode of NOVA in the article on Hugh Everett III.  (A reference to this week's episode of The Full Armor of God, however, will not help to establish the notability of The Full Armor of God.) —Zeagler (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The references to Full Armor of God Broadcast archives are listed only to reference notable guests, which also verifies some additional notability. However according to WP:N Notability does not neccessarily = fame or popularity. Your inturptetaions of Wiki policy are "fast & loose" and you are clearly taking liberties with the verbage to support your desire to have article removed. This is looking more like Ahab and the White Whale than of Wikipedia moderation on your part. It is all written down in clear black & white. You are subjectively picking and choosing what you feel supports your arguement.WP:N " This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content."173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Plenty of reliable, independent references. International airplay. I never heard of the program before now. I would be classified as a Wikipedia contributor, not only a reader.  Royal broil  05:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral Comment WP:MUSIC doesn't cover radio stations, therefore this article is under WP:ORG, which says: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". A had a look on the sources and at this point, I do not see a very sufficient coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in this article. So I recommend to the creators/contributors of this page to back up the content, find reliable sources and then add them or (if the page gets deleted before you do so) to recreate the page with reliable sources. (If it gets deleted before you back it up, ask the admin who deleted it.) But take into account that (if it gets deleted and) you will not be able to find additional/some reliable secondary sources, you don't need to recreate the page, because the sourcing is not very convincing at the moment. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP    ✉  10:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It appears that the guidelines of WP:ORG have been met within the article, where reference is made to the various radio stations that the program is playing on various radio stations, both on the internet and on the air.  Also, the while the OP's comments regarding not being able to find any reference to the program outside of their website may be true, it would possibly be because he's not used Google to do a cursory search of the program.  Doing so, I found references to the program at online radio stations, band websites, social media, and message boards.  While the program may not be as notable as, say, Howard Stern's show or the Rush Limbaugh Program, it is notable within the context of the subject of Christian Metal.  Perhaps the original poster is unaware of this notability.  Either way, the basic guidelines of Wikipedia's standards are being followed, and deleting this article is neither necessary nor within the bounds of those standards. 5minutes (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no evidence that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria which I agree are those at WP:ORG. I see a lot of misunderstanding of our criteria (or just plain ignoring our criteria) from people who want "to continue having this website up as a way to share info about the show, and to share our ministry work" and to give "the devil a black eye on Wikipedia" which also shows a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. The fact that it reads almost purely like an advertising page and that at least some editor's see it as a website for the program reflects its lack of notability with no significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: has canvassed the complete membership list of WikiProject Christian Metal, on their talk pages, with his message asking them to "help The Full Armor of God Broadcast keep giving the devil a blackeye on Wikipedia." Deor (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note I can't speak for anyone else, but while I was asked to contribute to look at the article and contribute to this discussion, I could care less about giving the devil, or anyone else, a black eye. Again, I do believe that this article does meet the guidelines.  Is this program as well known as, say, the King Biscuit Flour Hour?  No.  But as a program that is distributed on several radio stations, I believe it does qualify.  I will go on record as saying that I would challenge the notability of the host of the program (Kuba) and I will certainly oppose any attempt to use this article for proselytizing.  I do think the article needs to be re-worded to be a little less of an advertisement and more of an encyclopedia article, but deletion is, IMO, unnecessary and not validated by Wikipedia standards. 5minutes (talk) 14:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction and Note I was asked to "give the devil a black eye" and have corrected my previous statement accordingly (it didn't quite register with me that it was on my talk page). However, I'm not sure why asking members of a project to contribute to a discussion is a negative.  If members of the Waterfalls project were canvassed regarding the discussion of waterfall height, or to contribute to a discussion on the removal of Niagara Falls from Wikipedia, it wouldn't be considered a negative.  5minutes (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Votestacking - See Votestacking which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". I think the content and target audience of the message make the notification count as votestacking. Dougweller (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - agreed. It was a bad way to approach the issue.  However, the original comment also has been shown to be invalid as well. 5minutes (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable. Wether B (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 *  Note I have edited the page to be less advertising-y and more encyclopedia-y.  5minutes (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know about these accusations of Votestacking and Canvassing, it seems like an attempt to compound the issue and divert the disscussion from the facts. However, if notifying certain like minded individuals that this article has been nominated for deletion and informing them that any "advice, assistance or help would be appreciated" to avoid deletion is a violation of Wikipedia Policy, it was completely inadvertent. I sincerely and humbley appologize. As an obvious representative of The Full Armor of God Broadcast, I have perhaps taken this matter a little too much to heart. If my words have been in any way offensive to Zeagler or any of the other user and admins representing the opposition to this article I sincerely and humbley appologize. I am sorry. As such at this point, I will yeild to the more expreienced Wikipedia users and accept the decission of the deciding Wikipedia Admin upon the closing of this disscussion. But, I truly hope that all those who desire this article to be deleted will re-think their possition and allow it to be kept on Wikipedia.  I am responsible for helping contributors with much of the information previously listed on this page.  I know it to be true and able to be documented in writing if not online. But, I regret not being more familiar with Wiki policy and agree with Mr. Zeager and others having removed much of what could not be resourced online.  I do not, however agree with the deletion of this article. I once again urge Mr. Zeagler and others who oppose this article to allow this updated version of the article to be kept. I now understand how to go about referncing the type of information that has been removed and in the future I will only submit new information through more experienced wiki contributors and admins. I thank everyone for thier time and effort with this discussion and hope that this article is allowed to remain.  TY Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Guys this is really out of control. It's not about giving the devil a black eye, it's about meeting notability requirements by having significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources.  If anyone has such references just add them to the article and then list them here.  That's all it takes.  Nobody wants to delete notable, verifiable information from the encyclopedia, not even the people saying delete. It's about guidelines for inclusion, not opinions. Drawn Some (talk)


 * Additional Reply "Give The Devil A Blackeye" is a slogan used regularly on the program and was not directed towards the those pushing for deletion on this discussion in any way, but to encourage those familiar with the program. Please don't misunderstand the nature of the comment. I think it is very important to stay focussed on the essentials here. I do not see ANYTHING about "in-depth coverage" in WP:RS I am not sure why this keeps getting brought up?? Note: at this point User:Drawn Some is citing "in-depth coverage" is required as apposed users prior claims that subject is a "HOAX" and "Viral Marketing Scheme". It appears that Notability has been established according to WP:N, WP:WEB & WP:ORG. Here are the references that meet these guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the "Basic criteria" section at WP:N. I refer to WP:RS a lot because the sources being used are either not reliable sources or the content is trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am not a regular user but I am a regular reader. I feel this article is accurate according to references listed. They may not be the most popular sources, but they are certainly adequate to validate the subject71.59.254.50 (talk) 03:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I use Wikipedia on a daily basis, whenever I have a question and I'm looking for a quick answer. Whether I want more information on a character or actor in a movie or television show, or some background on a band I just stumbled across, or even to help me understand someone else's religious beliefs, side-effects of pharmaceuticals or scientific discoveries - THIS is the first place I look. On that basis, I see this article as being relevant to users of Wikipedia such as myself. Also, as one of the contributors to the original article I can confirm that information presented in this article is accurate and true. This is not a marketing stunt; but background information on a radio program with a significant listening audience.PastorZ (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was asked above what would be required to save this article according to the criteria I stated. That is actually fairly simple. If two sources which meet WP:RS criteria are found which provide significant coverage for the subject, it qualifies to be kept. Reliable sources in this context would include either print magazines, online equivalents which meet RS standards, encyclopedia entries of some sort or other, etc. If two of them can be found, that would verify that the article meets notability criteria. They might also be sufficient to have a Deletion review request allow the article to be restored. Personally, that would be the option I think most likely to succeed here. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. The subject does not meet WP:N; despite the heavy canvassing, no one has been able to present even one reliable source with significant coverage on the program. Prolog (talk) 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh.... what about the references listed on the page?  Take the canvassing out of the equation.  A list of radio stations the program plays at seems, to me, to be good enough for a list of references for notability, and it's a lot more than some radio shows on Wikipedia have. 5minutes (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The references only confirm the show's existence, not its notability. Take the other articles out of the equation. —Zeagler (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wow. It took me 20 minutes just to wade through the AfD. This does not, from my estimation, meet the minimum threshold of WP:N.  The refs include are either a) self-published (useful for info, but not establishing note), and b) trivial, listing-type (proving existence, not notability).  Athanasius • Quicumque vult  14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Please explain how you came to this conclusion aside from obvious connection with  Them From  Space  based on your user page? The implication seems to be that you don't consider the subject to have enough populatity or fame by your personal standards. WP:N clearly define that "Notabiltiy" is not based on poularity or fame". Subject is not self-published.173.88.39.37 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I go to wikipedia all the time I never log on but I go to it alot.I would like to say The Full armor of God brodcast is very real and I ENJOY IT VERY MUCH!!!!! I see no reason why ya want to delete it.I enjoy it very much and know many who are in the Christian motorcycle scene who listen to the show.The definition of the show was very accurate.SHOULD BE KEPT!!!71.226.104.241 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As a regular wikipedia browser, I would like to say I have been a listener and supporter of The Full Armor of God for years. I totally support this entry on wikipedia and see no valid reason to delete it.98.238.65.75 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2009 (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.