Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunken Masters vs. the Moon
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 of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Drunken_Masters_vs._the_Moon
- Do Not Delete, One of the principle virtues of Wikipedia is its ability to catalogue the small-time or niche things that would never be covered in a conventional encyclopedia. For example, internet memes such as O RLY?, which have a strong following in their own 'cult' communities would not and could not be featured in other encyclopedias because their format prevents them from listing niche notables. This readio show has a following in its particular community, it is one of the highest-rated shows on a St. Louis metropolitan radio station, KWUR. While the station's radio range itself does not boast broad accessability, their internet stream means that anyone with a connection the world over could potentially take advantage of their programming. Further, effort has clearly been exerted in the formation and maintenance of this article. This entry clearly conforms to the quality standards of Wikipedia. I think that this article and other niche notables do indeed have a place on Wikipedia and should therefore not be deleted. 21:00, 6 December 2005
- Do Not Delete, This show will last for two semesters and is broadcast via the airwaves, note KWUR. If you make a judgement on the size of the show as a criterium for deletion, then you would need to delete all pages on every radio show. I do think we would all agree Howard Stern does deserve a place on Wikipedia. This site is trying its best to conform to the standards of Wikipedia while chronicaling a niche part of history. Don't delete this article or a stub on the height of radio broadcast towers should also be deleted; they are just as irrelevent. At least here there is an interest and an valient effort to provide future generations information on a dying media form, freefrom radio broadcasting. ajpappal 05:00, 5 December 2005 (CST)
Vanity. (Small university radio program). VanR 10:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: A college radio show that is only 3 months old. It is available as a stream, but, then again, most college radio stations are. No evidence that this one has achieved a significant effect on the world of radio or people. Geogre 15:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn college radio show that will be gone next semester when the rotation changes. RasputinAXP talk contribs 16:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, non-notable. Ifnord 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. --Worthawholebean 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as above Colonel Tom 03:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Weak deletenotable in a local concern, but not enough so to vote to keep.--MONGO 03:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete, Wikipedia is a resource for free global knowledge and with the help of anyone with access to the internet, it has the obvious potential to become the world's most diverse and authoritative source for information. Why then would an article about a "small university radio program" be tagged for deletion? As users of Wikipedia we are suppose to record our knowledge into this database for the curious minds of the world. There are policies and criteria we must follow, but this article does not deviate from the standards any more than other articles which are revered for their presence. The answer to the question would seem to lie in the minds of those who want to regulate the information contained within wikipedia. Perhaps before one considers an article for deletion they must ask themselves if they have the global authority to remove human knowledge from this unprecedented resource. Although just a small radio program, it nonetheless exists and has full right to be recorded into history. Who are we to decide what cannot be recorded into history? We cannot even begin to comprehend the utility that these "small" entries will carry in the future. Instead of deleting information, these articles should be suggested for standardization to the accepted guidelines of wikipedia where they can exist side by side with other articles recording the activities and perceptions of humanity. --trhermes 03:11, 7 December 2005 (CST)
- 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.
