Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KRMS


 * 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   Keep (and kudos to the folks who helped save the article)  j &#9883; e decker  talk  21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

KRMS

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep *sigh* All radio stations are notable, as long as they have or have had an FCC license per consensus and precedence set. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs to be marked as a stub. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have updated the page with the basic information, stats, techincal information and such. I have asked one of our information gurus (dude can find anything) to add some sources to the page.  Please standby. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Good factual reference knowledge. scope_creep (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Further Comment - Our information guru User:Dravecky has added some sources to the page and updated the page further. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even Further Comment - Still more expansion and information/sources being added by our info guru. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and speedy close; the outcome was inevitable after the DRV discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as expanded article is now well-referenced and, per WP:BROADCAST, the station has both an established broadcast history and provides unique programming. - Dravecky (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Four days and eight edits to User talk:RHaworth, followed by a further seven days and the time of 13 editors at Deletion Review, and now a further seven days and the time of even more editors at AFD, as well as the time and tools of three additional administrators (King of Hearts, DGG, and whoever closes this discussion). And all this over 1 sentence that Bsherr was provided with within 10 minutes, but was unwilling to take, run with, and write a decent sourced stub article.  Instead we spend all of this time trying to make up specific rules out of some bogus sense of precedent, which is not how this works at all, instead of writing.  Shame on Bsherr for wasting everyone's time for weeks like this, by focussing on process wonkery instead of writing a sourced stub. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Uncle G is right on one level - but on another, the article is now so good that it was probably worth the effort! Congratulations to the two guys who made this into a proper article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that G's point has entirely escaped you. Recreating the article needed no DRV.  160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Blast. My evil plot to distract editors from writing articles by insisting on "fairness" and "courtesy" has failed again. Oh well, at least I'm still getting some good public shaming out of it. The work of those contributing to this article is excellent; great job! --Bsherr (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (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.