Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimshot (broadcasting)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rimshot (broadcasting)

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

WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary &mdash; TheBilly(Talk) 16:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This article includes information beyond that of a simple dicdef. It needs citations, for sure, but they should not be hard to find for the type of information included here (mostly broadcast locations of example radio stations). The topic is notable and the article would be useful for anyone researching radio and/or television broadcasting. Does not seem to be a candidate for merging, so I think it should be kept and citations added. Amazinglarry (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Per Amazinglarry. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • January 12, 2009 @ 20:59
 * Very Strong Keep I found this to be a fascinating topic that, like anything, could use better sources. This is more than a dictionary denotation, it alludes to a phenomena in the radio/TV advertising business.Critical Chris (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found this in a quick search. It's hard to google as drums and basketball articles abound.  But the article is far from a dictionary definition, and this oen article I found in a cursory search leads me to beleive that other sources are available to reference and build the article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article's subject is notable and the topic is covered in far more depth that a mere dictionary definition. - Dravecky (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Keep per Amazinglarry. Willking1979 (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2009 (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.