Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Today (Australian & New Zealand website)


 * 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 03:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Radio Today (Australian & New Zealand website)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails the general notability guideline as it doesn't have any reliable third party sources which give it significant coverage of notability, no does the article establish as to how the site is notable other then "Radio Today is the leading radio website in Australasia according to the independent Alexa rankings" which has a link to the Radio Today site but even if it was cited with Alexa, it is trivial and was created by an editor who has a COI. Bidgee (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bidgee (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is where I put this reply - apologies if it isn't. My understanding (I posted the article, but deliberately didn't talk the site up due to my COI as you have noted) was that Alexa was a valid source, if this isn't regarded as such then this comment can perhaps be deleted. The Alexa site does consistently indicate that the site is the leading site. Our other sources are notable. How you can regard Commercial Radio Australia as no a reliable source, or MCM Media as not reliable, or Crikey - all of which are highly reputable companies - is surprising. However, if you need information provided to further flesh this out then let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)  Reply moved to where it should be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability aside, when I accepted the article during the Articles for Creation process, I presumed there was significant coverage based upon the claims it had and the 3 sources it does have. According to WP:GNG, it should be presumed that a subject is notable when it has significant coverage. Is 3 reliable sources good enough? After all, the only reason the significant coverage is required is so that the information within the article can be verified. In my opinion, yes. HOWEVER! The 3 sources are not considered reliable, as they are trivial, simple mentions that do not meet the requirements. I'll continue to check and will give a !vote soon. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How many links would suffice to establish notability? Here are 3 more. One from one of Australia's biggest newspapers 'The Age', one from music industry site noise11.com, and one from the website 'thehoopla.com.au'. Hope this helps. Again, my apologies if i'm posting this in the wrong place.
 * http://www.noise11.com/news/dan-bradley-reignites-the-australian-music-quota-debate-20120309
 * http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/smooth-rebirth-for-melbourne-radio-station-20120427-1xpfh.html
 * http://thehoopla.com.au/women-radio-dial/
 * -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 23:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * These are websites that mention Radio Today and don't necessarily establish notability. The sources have to be about the content of the article itself. Also, if Radio Today earned an award of some sort, then it's notable per Notability (web). It also seems this website is a part of Radio Today (website), so perhaps we could merge it? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) However, the sources you provide may be used to verify the content in the article. Make sure that there is enough coverage to verify an article that extends beyond a stub. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Australian site is different to the UK site that you mentioned Michael, so best not merge. Thanks for considering the Radio Today (Aust /NZ) site, it is appreciated, and I look forward to you deciding whether it remains up or is removed. Obviously I hope it stays up! When will you decide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An admin will close the discussionn on or after 23:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC) (seven days from when the discussion was open by Bidgee at 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the references above, http://www.noise11.com is about an essay published by radiotoday.com.au, not about Radio Today itself. http://www.theage.com.au describes Radio Today's ammouncement of the rebirth of 91.5 FM (Melbourne radio station) as Smooth 91.5, which is not about Radio Today itself. http://thehoopla.com.au doesn't mention Radio today. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Notability is established with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources here do not represent significant coverage.  Specifically, Commercial Radio Australia is simply an entry in a list of links; MCM media is a PR piece focusing on themselves and is not coverage about Radio Today; The Crikey article is a passing mention; and finally, their #1 ranking on Alexa is self-claimed and self-constructed. The other sources named above are in the same boat. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay whatever you decide is fine, if you wish to delete go for it. Our intention was not to cause hassle or have a drawn out process, simply to have a page here reflecting our site. But if you feel it should be deleted then please do so, and we'll let it go. I jsut didn't think that it would be this big of a deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstrs (talk • contribs) 12:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to change the name of your website. Radio Today is descriptive, used world wide, and, to start stounding out, it may help to have a distinctive name, like AuZ Radio Today (for A ustralian & New Z ealand Radio Today). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - I didn't find any news coverage of the website. The website itself does not maintain an In-the-News page of news coverage about itself. No newspaper covered the website's formation, launching of 20 February 2012, or it's growth since 20 February 2012. There are many hits for Radio Today (usually as in adio today (e.g.)). Does not meet WP:GNG. Also falls into WP:NOTGUIDE: 4. Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2012 (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.