Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radioio

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 09:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radioio[edit]

Radioio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a noteworthy internet radio station. No independent, reliable, third party sources are found for this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All information I search for seems like an advertisement, so I cannot find any sources. It does not have anything notable about it, it mostly seems to be an average Internet radio station. We don't have articles on every single Internet radio station, and this one doesn't distinguish itself. --123chess456 (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been on the iTunes radio tuner for over a decade, which makes it one of the longer-term members of the service alongside DI.fm and SomaFM. Also the main streaming outlet for Bubba the Love Sponge, who is definitely notable. Haikupoet (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just reviewed the article myself, and also took a look at all the various articles that they are citing. To suggest that it is not a legitimate or notable internet radio service is baseless. They have been on iTunes for over ten years, are a preset on PS3 & PS4, and are one of the few internet radio stations respected enough to be a preset in GM vehicles. That's notable. They are also the primary in restaurant media for large companies like Subway, also showing they are a notable company. Radioio is also publically held, the home of the #26 talk personality in the US, is now hosted by Triton Digital. Not to mention the fact that there are many other articles, including SEC and Edgar Online articles and filings that make it very clear that this is a notable company and a service in the internet radio space. It seems to me that some part of this request for deletion must be personal, and not based on the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaBella242 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thagor, did you actually look at the sources that they have cited in this new wiki? Biz.Yahoo.com, Fox News, LA Times, SEC.Gov, Talkers.com, globenewswire, bizjournals, BUSINESS WEEK! Really? "no reliable sources"? What am I missing? I can see an argument for deleting it based on the formatting. Its a mess. But that's not the case you are making. However, RadioIO is a truly legit company with a history that should be acknowledged and These resources do a great job cementing their place in internet radio history. This page just needs a little reformatting to make it easier on the reader to digest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigNoteDoc (talk • contribs) on Mar. 14 2014.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I'm a bit dubious of some of the sourcing at first blush, as press releases are generally self-serving, but can support non-contentious claims. Also WP:Primary sources, are also sometimes acceptable, but will also be seen as suspicious. For this willing to invest the time looking, we needs news articles, even television reports that talk about this enterprise. I did see they were public traded so likely there are business news reports. Perhaps searching on the company's former name would help, as well as finding out a bit about the current executives. I think this is mainly a clean-up rather than notability issue, I also note that the name, is somewhat dreadful for pulling up a lot of false positives when searching. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment. I have seen other articles where the sources that re press releases note that specifically by adding "Press release," as part of the citation. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • Does it not worry you that no one has found it worthwhile to write about this "company," and that the only publications are press releases (which are self-published and thus do not confer notability) and directory-style stock listings? I invested the time looking for these, and the result was that nothing came up to establish notability or an article that can be built from third-party sources. This is a policy matter of verifiability with reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the finding of reliable sources might be challenging, but i have already unearthed a small trove which leads me to believe there are more. As example, I sometimes will follow the leads presented in press releases to see who is the CEO of the company, for instance, and then look to see if they are reported on without explicit mentions of the current company name. I believe that it's not really easy to find strong sources, but I'm not convinced they don't exist as much as haven't been found yet. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        • I wouldn't call anything that you've dug up thus far to be a reliable source for anything more than noting that the company exists. You have blogs and press releases. If you're convinced that the sources exist, but haven't been found yet, we should wait to have the article until those sources are located, no? Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:BEFORE asks that we do a good search before even nominating an article. And by characterizing all the sources i was able to easily find as press releases - (which I noted and offered how they can be used in a limited fashion as well as for leads to find reliable sources - and "blogs", which sounds like a disparagement when every leading business news company has blogs for most of their reporters and fields, seems needlessly dismissive. Let's see what others have to say. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
            • No one is disparaging your efforts, merely pointing out the low quality and unreliability of the sources. If anything, citing WP:BEFORE to someone who has already told you they've invested the time is much more disparaging than questioning the value of possible sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not terribly interested in going another saga round of back and forth, as can be seen here, I think I'll allow others to opine. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 02:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  • Comment I just looked at the references and agree that they're not particularly strong, but I suspect that it's because much of what was written about Radioio isn't archived and will take some deep searching to find. I'll start looking -- Radioio was one of the first internet radio companies and, at the very least, they have historical significance. JSFarman (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the Edgar's, SEC filings, and the links provided above, there's more than enough independent coverage to justify keeping the article:

That said, it needs a serious rewrite. Julie JSFarman (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, certainly significant amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per secondary sources provided above. Note, this is one of several instances of revenge editing by the nominator in the last several weeks. The only reason this article was nominated for deletion is because I added a citation to it on the Abby Martin article. I have brought the nominator to ANI for related disruption on the same set of articles per the examples cited at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS but the community has refused to do anything about it. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spreading false accusations around is not helping your case one bit. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only "case" at hand here is your case for deletion. There is nothing false about what I said, and you've admitted that you nominated this article for deletion because you saw me add a link to it on Abby Martin. Do you always deny things after you have admitted them? Strange. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I found it at an article" is not the same as "someone added it and I don't like them so I nominated it." Stop. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nice hedge, but no. You did not just find it an article. You found an article on my talk page, as you've previously admitted, and then you nominated this article after you saw me add it as a link to the original article you stalked me from in the first place. And the fact that you followed me to this article not to collaborate but for combat, is clearly the same as "I don't like them so I nominated it". You've already admitted that you believe I deserve to be watched and you are doing the watching. Anything else you need me to clear up about your disruption, or will you just keep telling tall tales? Viriditas (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not going to continue responding to paranoid claims in an AfD nomination. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's a bad faith AfD nomination made by you, as you were engaging in revenge editing. I don't see how paranoia comes into the picture at all. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, A little bit of digging has now shown that not only does radioio seem to be notable, but there are ample media references to warrant a keep. If there are any doubts at this point, I'll point out two Wikipedia articles about deletions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DOUBT#When_in_doubt.2C_don.27t_delete

When in doubt, don't delete[edit]

Shortcut

If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered. These include:

  • Googling the subject to see what sources do exist. A regular web search may not provide as many reliable sources as Google News, Books, or Scholar, so it is preferable to try the latter three. Please be aware that not all deletions are about sources or lack thereof.
  • Discussing issues with the article on the talk page. Here, you can wait to get a response from one or more others regarding whether or not it should be deleted. This is also a way to discuss possible changes that can be made in lieu of deletion.
  • Having a one-on-one discussion with the page's creator in order to learn his/her point-of-view, knowledge of Wikipedia's guidelines, what s/he was thinking when s/he created it, and his/her plans for that page's future.
  • Placing templates on top of the page informing others who read or edit the page of the issues so they can be improved. Template:Article issues lists most of the possible templates that can be placed on top of a page.
  • Suggesting the page be merged or boldly merging the page oneself. Merging can be done and undone without a discussion and without administrative intervention.

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BATHWATER#Don.27t_throw_the_baby_out_with_the_bathwater.21

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater![edit]

Shortcut

So, an article is not perfect. It is tagged for multiple issues. Its notability is in question. It has few if any references. It has some inaccurate or questionable information. It had loads of original research. But still, it has just the little spark of hope of being a viable article.

Well, if this is the case, the deletion process is not the route to take to solve the problems. That's what the talk page is for. Deletion of an article is damaging to Wikipedia and should only be used as a last resort. Content removal can be used to weed out problematic areas. Other adjustments can be made, which may include the addition of information and sources. It may take a lot of work. But it is well worth it!

On the other hand, there must actually be a baby in the bathwater. An article shouldn't be kept on the hopes that sources may be written about the topic one day; we all know that babies don't come from spontaneous generation in a dirty tub. They are brought by storks.

Keep. StellaBella24220:32, 17 March 2014 (EST)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radioio&oldid=1068845381"