Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greasy Tracks


 * 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 redirect to WRTC-FM.  MBisanz  talk 04:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Greasy Tracks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ORG. There are no independent, reliable sources that have covered Greasy Tracks as their primary topic. We'd need to see a substantial news or magazine article, book chapter, or other major medium that has covered this as the main subject. Usually we need to see more than one such source. There is passing mention in routine coverage like local news event schedules, but that is not sufficient for general notability. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - I do not believe WP:ORG applies here, but WP:NMEDIA does. Unfortunately, the individual program does not have enough coverage to make it independently notable. I recommend a merge into WRTC-FM. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi .. just adding my brief thoughts on this article being considered for deletion. I wrote the piece about the program (Greasy Tracks) as well as the entry for the station from where it is broadcast (WRTC-FM). I have added links to 10-plus news sources that covered Greasy Tracks and have updated the site. This is non-commercial station, there is no advertising, just to be perfectly clear about that. I trust you will notice the writing is solid, clear and concise. There is good background on the program, its history and related guests from the music and literary world who have appeared on the the air. Please read again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greasy_Tracks ... I would ask that you respect the time and effort put in and not delete the content. This is exactly what makes a venue like Wikipedia a great outlet to post informative pieces. Please contact me directly at greasytracks@aol.com if you have specific areas you would like addressed. I have to admit, I am a bit puzzled at what could have possibly caused this to be put on the chopping block, but hopefully the addition of coverage sources will shift your views. Thank you for your consideration. -Chris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radioeditor1 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 4 January 2016‎
 * It appears the article's creator is an single-purpose account who is here to promote the radio station and its programs. Note that it's irrelevant that it's non-profit; advertising for a non-commercial radio station is still advertising. What's really lacking is non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in independent sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dennis and others involved in the review. First and foremost, I want to make it clear, there is no advertising of anything related to the program I have hosted, "Greasy Tracks" or the radio station (WRTC) that it has aired on for more than two decades. There is no advertising. This is just a historical overview of the program, some highlighted features and guests (musicians, authors, etc). There is nothing saying anything related to "Listen to this, check this out, tune in on this time or date." There is NO advertising. Now, in regards to not getting regular coverage from independent sources, I hate to say it, but coverage of radio programming is something that does not happen that often in many newspapers and periodicals. When many would have weekly radio columns, those are things of the past. I listed a number of past coverage from a number of different sources including two of the largest papers in Connecticut (Hartford Courant and New Haven Register.)

Again, there is nothing being advertised, if there is something that comes across as advertising, please let me know as I have more than 25 years experience in communications and public relations and if anything, this is an historical overview of a radio program.

Again, let me know what needs to be changed, but I really cannot see what could possibly be a problem with the information, I am trying to figure out how to work with the group of you who appear to have the ability to make editorial cuts, thus are the decision makers, so I ask that you let me know, so I can make any edits that would be needed. Trust me, I'm trying to learn what all of the rules are here, so bear with me if I am not up to date on all of the "wiki" language. Thank you! -Chris  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  16:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to WRTC-FM, where it is already covered. The only sources here are primary or local media, so this doesn't meet GNG. LaMona (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as mentioned, several sources but still questionably notable for a separate article considering it's only a local one-station radio show. SwisterTwister   talk


 * 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.