Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locked On

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. Punkmorten 16:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locked On

Locked On (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nick Box (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Tim Chiosso (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a program broadcast on Bristol student radio. As student clubs, societies, and media are not generally considered notable per consensus, and this subset would be even less so. There is little assertion of notability, but I felt it preferable to bring to AfD rather than speedy as someone obviously put a lot of time creating this article. I also take the opportunity to propose two student DJs of the program. The articles are probable breaches of conflict of interest, the author is one Chiosso. Ohconfucius 05:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Can we bring Tim Chiosso and Nick Box into the afd? They appear to be notable only for the radio show. -- Ben (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very weak assertion of notability and conflict of interest. In addition, the only reference is the program's website (and a link to the Urban Dictionary main site). —ShadowHalo 05:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 06:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no good assertion of notability. delldot | talk 07:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing notable here. Sorry, boys. A Train take the 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I feel that the allegations aimed at this article are somewhat unfair. 'Conflict of interest' - this article does not aim to promote anything whatsoever, least of all the show itself, or the University of Bristol. 'Notability' - Wikipedia seeks to style itself as something of a "People's Encyclopaedia" (please note correct spelling), and it is, without doubt, an addition to this, and certainly does not cheapen, nor detract from, this goal. Finally, as has been noted above, a great deal of time and effort has been put into this article, and to delete it reeks of real petty-mindedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick boite (talk • contribs) — Nick boite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, —Larry V (talk | contribs) 07:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Nick Box = Nick boite??? Nick:Please refer to conflict of interest. Ohconfucius 08:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Weak assertion of notability, also seems to be original research/info gleaned from group's homepage. Charlie 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought one of the main points of Wikipedia was that it didn't have to only contain articles concerning subjects that are large enough to warrant a professional author's research. The beauty of Wikipedia is that it can contain articles on any subject, no matter how obscure, so that the few people who do want to read it can find it. Obviously, poorly written, offensive, unreliable or untrue articles must be removed and so must any deemed advertisements or those which have ulterior motives. However, this article falls into none of those categories, and deleting it simply because it is "not notable enough" seems to completely undermine the philosophy of a free and user-edited encyclopaedia. Removing articles such as this just detract from Wikipedia's main competitive advantage over other encyclopaediae. Chiosso 11:26, 21 December 2006 (GMT) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.252.64.1 (talk • contribs).
    • I would encourage you to read the notability and verifiability guidelines as well as WP:5P. The basic idea is if some kind of minimal standards aren't applied, the whole thing tends to break down into a disorganized pile of hoaxes, unmaintained vanity articles and unverified cruft, then WP itself isn't a reliable source of information. Tubezone 12:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the show and the presenters are not notable. Nuttah68 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Why was this even relisted? I think there was a pretty clear consensus before. -- Kicking222 16:05, 21 December 2006 (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.