Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles Lakers radio networks


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles Lakers radio networks

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

not notable given that the information is completely duplicative of sources already on the web (NBA and Lakers web sites) -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's a compound of 2 sources with more to come. Remove deletion. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs) 23:31, November 27, 2008


 * Comment: Sourced or not, this article is duplicative of resources already available on the web. All this article does is advertise the radio network. If there are similar articles for other teams, they should also be deleted, IMHO. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an advertisement! It puts the radio network in an easy-to-understand & find location, unlike the Lakers' website.  Yeah, announcers & other data will be added as time goes by.  This page is about 5 days old.  Yes, there are other pages like this & have been for YEARS!  Also, going back to information found on the web, A LOT of information used here is available on the internet!  It's just not easy to find!  PLUS, a lot of the information on the Lakers' web page was WRONG!  The communities of license.  I had to look up EVERY callsign listed on the Lakers' page on the F.C.C. database!  So in actuality, this information is MORE ACCURATE than what is available on the Lakers' own page!  I know in the radio network lists I've created I've done that every time.  You wouldn't believe how many stations have different cities than what their actual community of license is!  If it's a signal into a big enough city, I'll put the bigger city after the actual community of license (e.g.: W---: Woonsocket/Providence).    This is new, fresh, better information with more to come...but not tonight as it's 2A.M. here.  I say, KEEP!Stereorock (talk) 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: you might want to read up on Wikipedia policies regarding content as opposed to relying on your own justification, which isn't what we use here. I may be voted down here, I might not be, but I based the AfD on those policies as I interpret them. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as the article asserts notability, clears the verifiability hurdle, and while some expansion and better sourcing would be welcomed there is no policy of which I am aware that prohibits Wikipedia from containing information that can be found if one visits enough other websites. Indeed, the adamant prohibition against "original research" and the depth of Google and Google News means that many of the articles in this encyclopedia have been assembled based on reliable sources that may often be found on the internet. - Dravecky (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.   —Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Dravecky. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • November 28, 2008 @ 12:39


 * Keep - reasonably well written article which is well organized. It could use more references but it is verifiable and notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2008 (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.