From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article, image, template, or category is part of WikiProject Amateur radio, which is an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to Amateur radio technology, organizations, and activities. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
 |
 |
This article was deleted through the prod process recently. That deletion has been contested, and the article has been restored. Further attempts at deleting this article should be made through WP:AFD or WP:CSD if the article meets any speedy deletion criteria except the recreation of deleted material criterion. |
[edit] Notability
Hiya, continuing the conversation here... In order to make this article "stick", please include links to other places that refer to it, rather than just the company's own website. That'll help make a stronger case for notability, as opposed to spam. Or in other words, the article would most benefit, not just from emphasizing what the company does, but from making a case that other third-party sources routinely refer to it, meaning that the company's famous enough for a Wikipedia article. --Elonka 22:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. Although simple in principal it is more difficult in practice to cite web references to this company. ARRL has lots of references on their website (www.arrl.org), but they are for subscribers only. Checking out some of their pages such as "http://www.arrl.org/whatsnew.html" will show you the name but without being an ARRL member you can't get to the full article. As for CQ (www.cq-amateur-radio.com), their website is even more opaque. There are a few more websites which do have publicly viewable content such as QRZ.com ([1]) and eHam.net ([2]), but I'm not sure if you would consider these to be a primary source. I've put the mention of QST and CQ in the article, but unless you have access to print copies of the magazines it will be difficult for a non-ham to verify. Any suggestions? --StuffOfInterest 01:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- References don't have to be online, to be valid. They just have to be accessible and credible. Hardcopy books in libraries, are still legitimate references. So I'd say go ahead and cite the print copies, if you think that the publication is itself notable enough to count as a credible source? Also, are the articles about the company? Or it just that the company has ads in those magazines? --Elonka 02:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
- The company does advertise quite a bit, but I'm referring to reviews of the company's products done by the magazines. I've already put mention of the two most popular magazines in the article and I'll try to put in a few specific references to issues and products in case someone wants to go look up an old print issue. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 12:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
