Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DHMRO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Inadequate evidence of notability and the conflict of interests evident here are problematic, too. -- ChrisO 21:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DHMRO

DHMRO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depot Hill Media from a year ago. There are no independent, reliable sources to give this article notability. The only sources are local newspaper interest pieces. Google gives it about 600 hits. For its big merger with 207 Live, there are 84 hits...all of them from the Depot Hill Media website. In addition, the author of this article is the "president and CEO" of the company. He has spammed his website for this company before (see this thread) and seems to be continuing it with this and 207 Live. Metros 02:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment: To all viewing this AFD, please be wary when examining the article. I have found many false statements in this article (and have removed them) but I may have missed some. This includes a false NYSE listing, grossly inaccurate financial data, and the Canadian website linking to XM Radio. Metros 21:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Further comment I just noticed that almost the entire article was lifted from XM Satellite Radio and was just changed to fit the purpose of this company. So whenever it said "XM Radio," NightRider63 simply replaced it with "DHM." Metros 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong KeepIndependent sources what are you talking about? As far as i know PRN Newswire and Poughkeepsie Journal are all sources that are third party and independent. Honestly your nailed here. You tried to delete it and it wont work. These are all third party sources my friend--NightRider63 19:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment I said independent, reliable sources to give it notability. Yes, it has mention in those two things, but those are interest pieces and not reliable sources to confer notability upon this "corporation." Please show me which of the guidelines of WP:CORP this meets. Metros 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
CommentSure Thing,

"...The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:.." There is one.

Now for two..

"Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.".

Is it either one of those? No. Websters defines Incidental as a single event in time. A corporation is not a single place in time.--NightRider63 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The mentions in the two Poughkeepsie Journal articles are hardly non-trivial. The first one is part of the teens section of the paper which is "a section for teens, by teens, and about teens." Definitely trivial. The second article doesn't even work and just comes up with an invalid story key notice. Metros 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Regardless it is a third party website. You have no clue who could be editing that section of the newspaper. Sure it may say by teens for teens, but an older editor obviously scans the articles, making sure they aren't bullshit.--NightRider63 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So in your opinion, then, we should have an article on this company based on this article which states it just opened? I mean, it's a third party source, so obviously it's got to mean it's notable, right? Metros 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No you are incorrect there, and just contradicted yourself. I stated above that I am aware of a single event in time not being notable. Some video production studio has no merit, BECAUSE of opening. I didnt start an article because the company opened. The article has depth, far beyond what some articles im viewing you created do, it has substance.--NightRider63 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the archive at the paper's website...the second article never existed. Metros 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

:Keep It's notable enough. They are a corporation, this is not the only internet radio station with a wiki page. @ Metros, May i suggest placing an AfD on the other 30 or so internet radio stations on here--PownedByWindows 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC) — PownedByWindows (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep criterion. Each article has to stand on its own merits. Every corporation doesn't get an article. The article has to prove that it follows WP:CORP and/or WP:WEB. Corvus cornix 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Note PownedByWindows has been blocked as a sockpuppet of NightRider63. Metros 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wish there were a separate notability guideline for internet radio stations, but the closest thing I could find was this proposed guideline for conventional stations, Wikipedia:Notability_(TV_and_radio_stations), which was never approved. The gist of that guideline is that there are too many stations to have an article on every one, so it groups them into classes. Applying that general idea to internet radio, I see there are just a couple of newspaper articles covering DHMRO in a Poughkeepsie, NY paper (very local) in the *teen section*, which is likely not enough to get this station out of the very lowest category. This implies it's got to be one of the stations with the least impact or audience size among everything in the category. Obviously there is no indication of a national impact or wider recognition due to some innovative feature. Lacking more data on its importance, and with some concern about the COI involved in its creation, I'm voting to delete. EdJohnston 03:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sorry, too much conflict of interest here and some really confused information. I see no real reliable sources - the 'teen' section of the Poughkeepsie paper looks more like a blog than anything else. They also seem fond of calling themselves a 'public corporation' - can we get a link to any of the required public recordings or listings then please? Their 'corporate website' seems to be lacking in anything other than some blogs, gossipy news articles, and a low traffic forum. The sock puppetry and other outright duplicity make the entire thing pretty suspect. Kuru talk 23:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Why? What notability or other reason to keep it do you see? Metros 10:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Internet Radio is more popular than you think Metros. If you weren't so negative about this, it could be a great article.--NightRider63 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, but you've yet to show how your company is notable/popular. Metros 23:21, 2 October 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.