Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regional Radio Sports Network


 * 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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Regional Radio Sports Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:CORP. Appears to be primarily promotional with the listing of awards and the for lack of a better phrase, the TV Guide listing of programming available. John from Idegon (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

'''It appears I accidentally created this twice. My apologies. The other one is redirected here.''' John from Idegon (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔   06:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is perhaps a marginal case, but as a verified statewide radio network, I'm inclined to think this passes notability under the considerations discussed at WP:BROADCAST. I can't fault the article for the list of awards given that this is one of the ways you would establish notability; the list of programming perhaps doesn't need to name every high school they cover, but that's just editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have to disagree with just about every argument you raised. Firstly, this is nowhere near a state-wide network.  It serves only two markets in NW and North Central Indiana.  I do not see what non-notable awards do for showing notability, but even if they did, the network hasn't won any of them.  All were awarded to employees of the network, and the last two are not even associated with broadcasting (One broadcaster is in a state athletic Hall of Fame and two had some undefined association with high school teams that have won state championships).  Two of the colleges they cover are under 1000 in total enrollment, none are in the NCAA, and one isn't even in the NAIA. I see absolutely nothing in the notability guideline you referenced about radio networks.  I am hoping you will reconsider your opinion, although you are welcome to have whatever opinion you wish. John from Idegon (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Re "statewide": I was looking at the information about the Indiana High School Sports Report, which they produce and which is aired statewide: given your comment I had a closer look at the source, and I agree that this is not the same thing as a statewide network.  On the other hand, I don't fully agree with you about the awards: I don't agree that awards should be disregarded if they are awarded to individuals for work done for the network, as many of these awards appear to have been, based on the sources.  I think we should apply reasonably generous standards in our evaluation of the notability of media outlets, for the reasons spelled out at WP:NMEDIA (". . . the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition.' Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources.") . On balance I think I'm still weakly in favor of keeping this, but if others disagree I'll understand. (And I'm going on vacation so this discussion will probably wrap up just fine without me.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  23:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: After being up 3 weeks with 2 relists and 1 Keep with no Delete !votes - I considered it an obvious keep but the nom's disagreed so have relisted.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:02, 2 August 2014 (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.