Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XMU (XM)

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 keep. Article has been cleaned appropriately.-Wafulz 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] XMU (XM)

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

Speedy delete. Worst example of blatant advertising I've ever seen; if it's not advertising then the text was clearly copied and pasted from a promotional page. I had this page up for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed. Chardish 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You can tag it again. Unlike proposed deletions, the creator can't remove a speedy deletion tag. Anyway, speedy delete as blatant spam. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Right, but it wasn't the creator who removed the tag. Am I misunderstanding the policy? - Chardish 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Just looked at the article history and you got me there. TPH seems to have taken care of it with a new tag, though. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as spam, so tagged. (Gotta love Twinkle...) Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Weak keep, article reads better now, but I'm still not sure if it's notable. XM stations seem to be pretty much inherently notable though. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not sure it needs to be deleted but definitely needs improvement in relation to peacock terms, see WP:Peacock aNubiSIII (T / C) 02:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite. Just by being a XM Satellite Radio station it's notable, but it needs a re-write to not seems like an advertisement. (Update: I just removed the gigantic "Current Programs" section which looked like a copyvio advert) --Oakshade 02:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless Cleaned Up. Concur with the above. I can get a program schedule at XM's website - that's what it's for. This is a notable station, broadcasting on XM for several years - but the article needs to be in that context. A listing of some programs is apporpriate, but only to show the types of programming typical of the station - and it should not necessarily be limited to programs currently on the air, especially if past programming was notable in its own right. Revised to Keep, per below ZZ 03:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Which version are you referring to? Right now there are no programs listed and it's just a stub describing the station. --Oakshade 04:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So noted - I saw the previous version and got carried away. The current stub, though badly in need of expansion, addresses my issues - so we should Keep it. ZZ 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Perhaps I'm missing something - this article is one of a large collection of articles about these channels. Why are they not all marked for deletion? One article containing short descriptions of all the channels might be appropriate, though it strikes me as too ad-like to be encyclopedic. But I can't see any reason to keep a whole lot of separate articles, one per channel. Tualha (Talk) 03:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, there's no reason we should keep a roster of all of the ever-changing XM stations. Maybe a few of the notable ones, like Fred. I see we actually have a template listing all of them, what overkill. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite - It's a puff piece now, but there are currently articles for each of the XM channels. I think it's noteworthy in that respect, but perhaps some more could be added to it.--Fightingirish 06:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite No reason to delete clearly notable page if rewrite is possible.--Cerejota 06:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Whats so notable about it? It is straight up advertsing. Even the external links point to the intent. Consaka 08:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Its a channel in a popular satellite radio medium. Thats notable.--Cerejota 08:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite - I agree, there are some channels currently listed as fluff. However, this is why there is a stub tag listed for such case. TravKoolBreeze 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The level of advertising is now down to the normal level for radio station stubs, band stubs, and the like. Ther is at least one compeltely independant source cited. Expansion with sourced content would be good, but this is an acceptable stub as it stands. DES (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Only inasmuch as, as far as a stub for an XM radio channel goes, it looks clean enough now. But I tend to agree with Dhartung's comments above. I don't know that XM channels, in and of themselves, warrant their own articles. Talking out both sides of my mouth, I know. Douglasmtaylor 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • At this point I would probably vote keep just out of the fact that all XM stations have stubs. I think we seriously need to consider merging these articles by genre of music, though (similar to how XM's channels are currently sorted.) But usual procedure is to DB blatant spam that would need a complete rewrite, which this article was before it was turned into a stub. Not sure how I feel about all that. - Chardish 00:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Improving an article is alway the right thing to do. This case was a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep but improve If All of the other XM channels have an article, why shouldn't this one? FrogTape 00:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep All XM Channels have an article, just re-write the article.--NightRider63 22:28, 21 July 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.