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. — Cirt (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frequencycast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's subject fails to meet WP:N. Softdevusa (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet notability. The first reference is to a blog webpage which does not establish

While the article has five references so far, they are all incapable of evidencing notability. The first reference is to a blog page,it does not evidence notability. The following four references are to the own frequencycast.co.uk website which is not evidence of notability.

Searching for "Frequencycast" +podcast -blog -forum on Google Web returns the first few pages (of 20 results each) do not appear to contain coverage of the broadcast that can indicate notability. Searching for "Frequencycast" on Google News returns zero trivial/press release results. Softdevusa (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable podcast. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does appear to have won an award, however the article does not assert any other notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 01:23, 28 June 2011 (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.