Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 66 on the Air!


 * 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. At this time, the concerns about the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources outweigh the arguments for keeping this article. — TKD::Talk 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Route 66 on the Air!

 * – (View AfD) (View log) Search

Notability is about the availablity of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame. Route 66 on the Air! has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Route 66 on the Air! to develop an attributable article on the topic. Those in charge of this annual amateur radio event posted a canvassing notice in a blog: "Also, if anybody cares to head over to Wikipedia and state that you feel that this is at least as notable as every minor character in Yu-Gi-Oh, be my guest." However, personal opinions about the importance or fame of Route 66 on the Air! cannot create an attributable article on the topic. If there is reliable source material for the article, post it in the article and/or in this discussion. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of reliable sources. Google returns a number of hits that are amateur "I was there" types of websites, but little in the way of media coverage that would indicate that this is really notable in an encyclopedic sense.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is the event notable? Yes; there's a strong claim for that made in the article. Is that claim verifiable? No. I don't see a single reliable source in the article --and yes, I would consider ARRL newsletters to be sufficiently independent for this purpose . Without sources, though, one of the two cornerstones of the article is not met. Provide me sources, and I'll reconsider my position, but in its current state, the article fails verifiability. Disclosure: This user is a licensed amateur radio operator. —C.Fred (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: A full length article (4+ column-inches) written by an independent author for an ARRL newsletter would, IMHO, qualify as a reliable, independent source. Neither a blurb nor an article written by a participant would qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - C.Fred has spoken to reliability, as to verifiability, see for instance and . --WhiteDragon 17:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Neither source really meets the criteria of WP:RS. Was this event covered in the major media?  AK Radecki Speaketh  17:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I read the criteria for reliable sources and ARRL seems like a reliable enough source, since they are an independent organization (not the organization putting on the event), which listed news such as that the event occurred, without giving any opinion about it. --WhiteDragon 17:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. My concern with the two sources mentioned above is that the blurbs are so short that they fall into the realm of trivial coverage. That may be the slippery slope with ARRL coverage: anything longer may not be independently authored. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as I have my doubts whether the above links give significant coverage & whether they're reliable sources Corpx 03:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as probably notable raido program and event. Needs more reliable sources. Bearian 17:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as NN and spam. Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:ORG.  Vegaswikian 06:50, 7 September 2007 (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.