Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Monash
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 Merge and redirect to Monash University. - KrakatoaKatie 12:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Monash[edit]
Ex-amateur radio denied a license who now streams on the 'net. No assertion of notability. Coren 15:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- statement that Radio Monash is ex-amateur is assumption. Please provide proof of this statement Coren. Cazza411 11:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doczilla 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn/ talk 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability (A7).Garrie 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Monash University after editing down to essentials. --Bduke 23:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per BDuke. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per BDuke. Orderinchaos 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made some changes to the article - sources conflict each other and none are WP:RS, but at least we have some clear idea of exactly what we are voting on now :) Orderinchaos 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per BDuke. It's been on the air for quite a while, but RS appear to be a problem, so merge for now. John Vandenberg 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain Notability asserted given organisation's history and the fact that it is still operating. Should remain separate from Monash University as it is in itself independent despite financial contributions from the University and it's operating location. In fact Monash University administrative support further asserts the notability of the organisation. I suggest people take the time to read Talk:Radio_Monash. --60.241.201.106 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern being raised here (by Australians who would want to keep this article if it were encyclopedic) is that Radio Monash has not been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. John Vandenberg 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- John, recent publicity of "Radio Monash" (as it is currently named) is naturally restricted to closely operating organisations such as, obviously, Monash University (including staff and students) and affiliated groups and thus I would be surprised to read of Radio Monash per se in newspapers and magazines. Yet I believe that the significance of the evolution leading up to the organisation as it operates today is such that it warrants an 'encyclopaedic' representation especially since the organisation still exists albeit under the name of "Radio Monash". I ask that you read this page from cbonline.org.au that mentions some of the historical context in which 3MU evolved, and the self-published history that can be found here. Community Radio is clearly an important aspect of society (and I am sure you are not arguing to the contrary) - the roots from which Radio Monash has since evolved in their own right, in my opinion, warrant notability. You can read more about that in an article by Dr. Jeff Langdon called "The Social and Political forces that led to the Development of Public Radio in the 1960's" published in 1995. I, however, do believe that this article does lack somewhat in historical context and detail, hence I can see why so many perceive that this page should be merged or deleted - but clearly I do not agree with those perceptions. The page should be expanded on and boast the significance (which I argue is readily seen if one looks) that this organisation holds which is distinct from the University itself.--60.241.201.106 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The concern being raised here (by Australians who would want to keep this article if it were encyclopedic) is that Radio Monash has not been mentioned in newspapers, magazines, etc. If you can provide evidence to the contrary, please do. John Vandenberg 11:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "naturally restricted to closely operating organisations", I dare say that's pretty much one of the definitions of "not notable". That's a good argument for delete, not keep! Coren 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha sure, if you take it out of context it is. --60.241.201.106 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. However the context is plainly visible above, and fully supports my comment. Coren 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oookay Coren, if you say so. ;) But to everyone else who isn't as steadfast in their opinion, you should be able to see from what I wrote that Radio Monash and all prior names are one and the same. There is clearly historical significance and it is my opinion (but clearly not the opinion of others such as Coren) that this is weighty in terms of notability. I also think that the authors of the article (of which I am not one) convey this. To clarify the quote of myself by Coren, I am trying to say that the organisation is now limited in its publicity due to licensing and being a youth/student service. It's exposure is reduced due to the relatively inaccessible nature of the medium (being the internet). This is akin to the way of Australia's Channel 31 where the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting coupled with licensing requirements hinder the station's viability since more and more households are changing to digital thereby making Channel 31 inaccessible. I would not relate the reduction in Channel 31's audience to a reduction of notability. Nevertheless, if people choose to deny the history as significant then indeed Radio Monash is not notable. --60.241.201.106 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing notability with popularity. Nobody here, I think, is claiming that this radio station is somehow unimportant. It does appear to have relevance to Monash University (which is why many here are suggested that the article be merged (back?) into the U's article). But it does not match the minimal guidelines for notability by itself. This is no reflection on what you perceive to be a significant part of history, but on the appropriateness of having an article. Do you have any idea how many amateur/community/college/student radio stations there have been since Marconi? Coren 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Coren I think you are the one confusing popularity with notability. 60.241.201.106 makes no reference to popularity, and the statement that "I would not relate the reduction in Chanel 31's audience to a reduction of notability", seems to have deliberately been taken out of context in order to fuel your argument. The writer never equates popularity with notability, or vice-versa. My interpretation of the writer is that the audience (and you could potentially argue popularity) is irrelevant to the notability of the station. Although Chanel 31 is less obscure to some than Radio Monash, Radio Monash is arguably of equal relevant notability. Just as Channel 31 was Australias first Community TV station, Radio Monash was Australia's first 100% online student radio station, as per the evidence of notability I've posted.Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing notability with popularity. Nobody here, I think, is claiming that this radio station is somehow unimportant. It does appear to have relevance to Monash University (which is why many here are suggested that the article be merged (back?) into the U's article). But it does not match the minimal guidelines for notability by itself. This is no reflection on what you perceive to be a significant part of history, but on the appropriateness of having an article. Do you have any idea how many amateur/community/college/student radio stations there have been since Marconi? Coren 15:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oookay Coren, if you say so. ;) But to everyone else who isn't as steadfast in their opinion, you should be able to see from what I wrote that Radio Monash and all prior names are one and the same. There is clearly historical significance and it is my opinion (but clearly not the opinion of others such as Coren) that this is weighty in terms of notability. I also think that the authors of the article (of which I am not one) convey this. To clarify the quote of myself by Coren, I am trying to say that the organisation is now limited in its publicity due to licensing and being a youth/student service. It's exposure is reduced due to the relatively inaccessible nature of the medium (being the internet). This is akin to the way of Australia's Channel 31 where the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting coupled with licensing requirements hinder the station's viability since more and more households are changing to digital thereby making Channel 31 inaccessible. I would not relate the reduction in Channel 31's audience to a reduction of notability. Nevertheless, if people choose to deny the history as significant then indeed Radio Monash is not notable. --60.241.201.106 11:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps. However the context is plainly visible above, and fully supports my comment. Coren 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha sure, if you take it out of context it is. --60.241.201.106 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "naturally restricted to closely operating organisations", I dare say that's pretty much one of the definitions of "not notable". That's a good argument for delete, not keep! Coren 23:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per BDuke. Ichibani utc 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence of Notability & Independent Reference In answer to John Vanderberg, as per no newspaper articles re Radio Monash, and in additionally to Coren who ASSUMES no notability, this link shows Radio Monash was Australia's first completeley online university radio station. I think that answers the question on IMPORTANCE. Admittedly the reference is somewhat obscure, but obscurity is a poor measure of validity (note Mendel's laws of genetics were published 1866, but languished in obscurity until the 1900's; they are now considered seminal works in the field of genetics)Cazza411 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain but reclassify after having read various arguments, I agree with --60.241.201.106 to keep page, but classify as a "start" page. I think it is worthy of notability, if a little obscure for those in the Northern hemisphere ;) however the quality of the article content could use some improvement. Article talk page said it was started by a fan. Note it seems Coren is not a person to accept individuals disagreeing with him/her, and I felt that he/she was deliberately attempting to provoke and argument with --60.241.201.106. Rather childish behaviour really. Cazza411 11:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.