Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Klemmer

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 07:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Klemmer, Proguli and Progulus Radio

Internet radiostation and its owner. No evidence of notability for either, and the neologism just has to go; delete. --Peta 02:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete All All three are non-notable. TJ Spyke 02:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can understand the deletion of Michael Klemmer and Proguli, but I see no justification for the deletion of Progulus Radio. "No evidence of notability"? You not being aware of it does not in any way equate to it not being notable. Please give a justifiable reason the the deletion of Progulus Radio. UniversalMigrator 02:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Progulus Radio has been in operation since 2005 and has become known throughout the United States, South America, and Europe, as a superior internet radio station for progressive rock and metal. I see no justifiable reason for the article's deletion. UniversalMigrator 02:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Who says its good? Please see WP:WEB which is the probably the best guideline in this situation.--Peta 02:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Progulas Radio fails to meet all 3 requirments of WP:WEB]. TJ Spyke 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete All as per nom and as per above. wikipediatrix 03:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So, Wikipedia isn't for small game, eh? Only well established stations who have money for marketing and promotion so they can obtain enough "notability" from media are worthy for Wikipedia? What about noncommercial venues that are well established within the listener base for the genres it plays? UniversalMigrator 03:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Just Google progulus and one can see that lots of people art making note of Progulus. Many established bands send their fans to Progulus to listen to their music. It seems that according to your unreasonably strict guidlines that if something is noncommercial and so does not push its image out into the world actively enough to recieve recognition from the corporate world, then it is not noteworthy. This is a strange position for a free information source containing large amounts of user contributions to take, in my opinion. It would seem to me that the very purpose of such a forum would be to gather information of this sort. I suppose that in the end it doesn't matter to you, though. Not until Progulus has several "notable" articles written about it, featured in "noteworthy" newspapers and magazines. UniversalMigrator 04:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All you have to do is proove that it meets ONE of the WP:WEB criteria, which is the criteria for EVERY article on Wikipedia that is about a web-based subject:
1)The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
2)The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
3)The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. TJ Spyke 04:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the only article I can find about it: Casey, Chris. Points North: Windsor resident unfurls art-rock splendor online. Windsor Tribune, 2006-04-24. Seems pretty notable and verifiable to me. Do I need to wait until more articles are written about Progulus to be able to do this? This is not a promotional thing, I'm not even associated with the station operations, I just tune in from time to time. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found that there was no info, so I thought I'd try to put it up. UniversalMigrator 05:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It says multiple non-trivial sources. This has nothing to do with the quality of the station, it's just that WP is for subjects that are already notable(and not for helping something become notable). It can always be re-created if/when it can meet one of those criteria. TJ Spyke 05:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Understandable. I thought I'd give it a shot anyway. Now to get some articles written! However, is the source given usable? Doesn't seem trivial to me. UniversalMigrator 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The source you provide looks fine to me. TJ Spyke 05:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all unless evidence showing they satisfy WP:WEB is found. --Pak21 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here is info on 3 hardcopy appearences of progulus in print, and 1 in an online web-zine.

http://www.dprp.net/news/index.php?i=2005_40 http://reg.greeleytrib.com/?rd_url=http%3A//www.greeleytrib.com/article/20060424/NEWS/104240095%26SearchID%3D73256243135911&WTID=2208989588226 http://www.windsortribune.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=3658 And, there was an article about Progulus written up in an issue of www.iopages.nl, which is a Dutch hardcopy magazine. I don't recall which issue it was, but it was around Nov/Dec 2005. The link to the magazine is, www.iopages.nl but they don't have online editions of the magazine. I agree that the other 2 articles should be removed, but the article on Progulus is justified. -Tyr- 18:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the dprp.net link is essentially a blog, despite it calling itself an "online newspaper". The Greeleytrib link is members-access-only. The windsortribune link is already on the Progulus Radio article. None of these justify the existence of the Michael Klemmer and Proguli articles, and they don't really add much to Progulus Radio either. wikipediatrix 18:50, 8 September 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.