Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Morning Forest


 * 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. Courcelles 00:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Morning Forest

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks external sourcing. The typical WP:BEFORE checks through numerous search engines turned up no usable sources for the article, which means it fails our policy on verifiability, and possibly the general notability guideline. Prior sourcing for the article was provided through links to recorded show audio through sites such as MegaUpload, which aside from self-publishing concerns, were copyright violations and could not be used.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * All of the content on this page is true and verifiable through the uploaded radio show bits. It hasn't come up in search engines because it is a small radio station that cannot afford proper advertising for its shows.  This hopefully would be the shows first link to information about it.  There is no copyright violation because it is all open source, creative commons licensed, self-generated material. MothBall77 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC).
 * How is this show supposed to get any recognition if it isn't on the Internet's most popular engine for getting information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the CC licensing, so I will strike that from my rationale. However, linking to a file download site is still inappropriate. In regards to your second point, Wikipedia is not to be used as a promotional end. Furthermore, Wikipedia has policies on notability and verifiability, which I linked to above, which require that article subjects are reported on elsewhere before meriting an article here. In short, it gains recognition, then ends up on Wikipedia, not the other way around.  elektrik SHOOS  17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well since this is a semi-small college, it would be impossible to pull old articles about the show from their archive. They do not keep one!  I know that is frustrating.  But can't the uploaded files be used as a replacement for a reported/written article?  In a way, the audio files are a testimonial that someone out there cared enough to record the show and upload them.  How isn't that gained recognition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 17:49, August 3, 2011
 * Unfortunately, not on its own. That standard on Wikipedia is defined by the general notability guideline, which requires significant coverage in reliable, unaffiliated sources. Using episodes of the show as a reference may show that information in the article is true, but it doesn't necessarily confer notability.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the sources that taped the show are unaffiliated to the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As author of this site, I have contacted the show's creators and personalities and they said that they would like an article. The co-author of this article knew of some students--not with the show--that had been recoding the show and uploading it to the Internet.  This has to be reliable and unaffiliated sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MothBall77 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The word of a few random students who decided to tape the show is unfortunately not good enough. In this case (and all cases), "independent and reliable" would mean sources such as magazine or newspaper articles, unaffiliated radio shows covering the topic, outside web pages writing about it (excluding personal blogs and the like)—those kind of sources. See our guideline on identifying reliable sources.  elektrik SHOOS  (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. University clubs are generally assumed not to be notable, per the lack of coverage outside their home university, and this is no exception. The fact that the article's creator has admitted a promotional goal in creating the article only strengthens the argument for deletion. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2011 (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.