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. Welcome to our guests. I have closed this discussion as "delete" despite the presence of many keep comments. This is not a vote, but a discussion to determine whether the article meets Wikipedia's policies. I deleted this article primarily because it does not establish "notability" in the sense that we use that term on Wikipedia. For a stand-alone article to exist here, you need to demonstrate that reliable sources (and you can click on the link to see what we mean by that) have written about the subject in a meaningful way - the idea being that we then can use those sources to confirm the information we have, and write a neutral article. While this article had many sources, I did not see any that are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. The participants in the debate who pointed out the absence of such sources appear to be correct, which is why the article has been deleted. I'm sure that there will be those who want to know how to "appeal", you do that by going to deletion review. That is not a second bite at the apple, but instead a review of whether I properly followed policy here. Also, I can provide a copy of this article in someone's user space. The article can then be re-written, and reliable sources added. If an article emerges that meets Wikipedia's policies, the article could then be restored. Thanks for taking the time to read this far. I hope many of you choose to become involved with editing here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full Armor of God Broadcast[edit]

Full Armor of God Broadcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I explained on the article's talk page, WP:WEB does not apply here because the broadcast is not solely distributed on the internet. (Though even if it were, we'd still need sources of information that go beyond the broadcast's official site.) I've been searching Google and Factiva for some independent coverage that would help the article meet WP:NOTABILITY, but there is none to be found. —Zeagler (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Full Armor of God Broadcast is soley distributed via internet digital distribution by FullArmorRadio.com (including to terrestrial stations), thus Notibility (web) Criteria would seem to apply. It appears that Zeagler is overly knit picking this article. Me thinks thou dost protest too much. What is Zeagler's motive for scrutinizing this page so heavily?173.88.8.29 (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.23.76 (talk)
It's not about truth, it's about sufficient independent references to establish notability and to verify the article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those would seem to be the very definition of a trivial reference, a directory or schedule listing, maybe with a very brief description. "Less than exclusive" means, for example, an article that is about cat breeds and that has a few paragraphs on Maine Coons that discusses them in detail but also has sections that talk about other breeds as opposed to being solely about Maine Coons. I have no prejudice against the subject of this article and if someone can show me the references I will be glad to change my opinion to keep. The information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable and the subject of articles must be notable and we have guidelines to determine these things. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine? —Zeagler (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often get comments from listeners about how they like the show as it is different, or asking "Whats the show that comes on at midnight?" If there's a Wikipedia page of it, that's a huge help, I can just reply with a link in the email. If you have any questions or comments feel free to contact me, www.wtgoradio.com or myspace.com/wtgo -Brett Estes69.160.193.252 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with you on this point Mr. Zeagler. This is important because the rules seem to be ever changing and this is looking more and more like a witch hunt than a disscussion for the good of Wikipedia. On this note, there still seems to be sufficiant basic coverage if not in depth and excessive coverage enough to warrant that this subject be allowed to remain on Wikipedia. Would you consider removing your tag if all additional information goes through you before posting? There is no doubt that much of the information which you removed was questionable and you were right in removing it. However, is total deletion of this article the best thing for Wikipedia, not to mention the moral principal that this subject serves? FYI -The Full Armor of God Broadcast has contacted DecembeRadio for an interview, H20 Artist management has returned the call and an interview is currently being scheduled with the band's manager Eric. Would this help establish some notability in your eyes?173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Coverage typically means books or articles that discuss the subject. It does not mean an entry in a radio station's schedule. Since radio stations don't put out books/articles, I didn't find it necessary to contact any of them. The homework that I did involved consulting a search engine unlikely to miss a notable web source (Google) and a database of over 14,000 newspapers, journals and magazines (Factiva). —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second question that needs more clarification is what does the nominator mean by “as it has terrestrial outlets”? Taken from the discussion page (Talk: Full Armor of God Broadcast) where the nominator also posted this statement “WP:WEB does not apply to FAoGB, as it has terrestrial outlets – "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." You need to show that FAoGB meets WP:NOTABILITY. —Zeagler” From the statement “as it has terrestrial outlets” it appears that the nominator is acknowledging “coverage” beyond that of the internet. In this case the motion to delete this article needs to again be questioned because the motion and discussion is based on “coverage” versus other reasons.
  • Reply "Terrestrial outlets" does not equal "coverage". —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Notability (Web) Ctriteria has been met and should be sufficiant to establish enough notability to Keep Article.173.88.44.186 (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement’s use of “Can’t Find” does not demonstrate what methods were used and what the outcome was. Later comments by the nominator states the use of “Google and Factiva” however, no comments were made showing if the nominator attempted to contact radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) in regards to this matter. In this case, if the nominator is looking for proof of “coverage” an email/letter/phone call or fax to a radio or radio stations (which list “The Full Armor of God Broadcast” on their schedule) would certainly meet the criteria of “Necessary Homework” and present a more established level of credibility as evidence over “Google and Factiva”.
Later on in the discussion the nominator states “The kind of references I want – and when I say "I want" I really mean "WP:NOTABILITY calls for" – are the kind where "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it." Has anyone seen fit to do this? Kuba's hometown newspaper? A Christian music magazine?” Again, when looking at this statement was the “necessary homework” done? Did the nominator search “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” or any Christian/Non Christian, Music/Non Music Publications? If the answer is no, then the nominator has to question the “Necessary Homework”. Most libraries or newspaper publishers keep copies of past articles that can be accessed by the public. Many of these publications possibly would not come up during a search (various internet search engines) and would have to be verified by different methods. Also The Full Armor of God’s Broadcast’s email and phone number is public information and easily found on their website. (This would allow the nominator the location of “Kuba’s hometown newspaper” should the nominator wish to research in that manner.) In regards to “A Christian Music Magazine” the article in dispute lists HM’s founder Doug Van Pelt. Were there attempts made by the nominator to reach out to this magazine or to Mr. Van Pelt?
  • Reply I will not carry the entire burden. Surely those involved with the creation of this article, seeing as how they've admitted their connection to the show, have better access to this information than I. Why haven't they come up with anything? —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is noted that the nominator has an established knowledge level of Wikipedia. This is proven by the nominators comment, ”That the subject of this article is Christian doesn't seem to be an issue. I am the nominator, and I am responsible for two good articles in the field of Christian music: DecembeRadio and Satisfied (album). —Zeagler”
The fact that the nominator has written two good articles in the area of “Christian Music” gives several alternative options to deletion that would have been better to see the nominator use from the Wikipedia Guide prior to nominating this page for deletion:
  • (investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.)
  • (consider adding a tag such as cleanup, disputed or expert-subject instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content.)
  • (consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD)
  • Reply These were done. Since I had no reliable sources, there was nothing to rewrite. The article was indeed tagged before nomination, although the editors were quick to remove the tag without establishing notability, and there is no good place to redirect/merge this article. —Zeagler (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thank you for your comments. I respectfully would like to suggest that you consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_metal as the subject matter (Chistian Metal) appears to be in line with "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" (since the show plays Various Styles of Heavy Christian Metal) and would fufill the requirment for redirect/merge. At the bare minimum "The Full Armor of God Broadcast" should at least be mentioned on that page.70.153.164.153 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply A mention at Christian metal may be in order whether this article is kept or not. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss this program's importance to the genre? —Zeagler (talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have chosen to post this message as a “comment” and not a “keep”/”delete” because I do not regularly contribute or discuss matters on Wikipedia and hope that this comment is not considered “Sockpuppeting”. However, I do consult Wikipedia on multiple occasions especially in regards to music (both Christian and Non-Christian Music). I do find it a valuable resource and think that efforts to maintain correct information are vital to the success of this resource. In my future visits to Wikipedia, I hope to find this page here, as is, re-written (by author or nominator), or as a redirect as this information can be and is useful to those looking for a specific genre of music, radio show information, radio show history, or other reasons. 70.153.164.153 (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) — 70.153.164.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment In regard to post by John Carter, aside from Factiva, how can significant coverage be established? Article has references to several radio stations & artists that appear on Wikipedia as well as to internet broadcasters who appear on SHOUTcast. Perhaps not the highest grade of coverage, but shouldn't that be considered significant coverage of at least minium standards, or if nothing less what about Notability (Web) criteria that is met? Please help save this atricle John. I realize it did need to be slimmed down and it has been. My prayer is that you have a change of heart on this matter.173.88.28.69 (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realize that the opposition to this article will try discredit the supporters who are posting by asserting that they are not "Wiki Contributors" however many are wiki readers. I submit that they should not be invalidated on these grounds. Also as I have stated before the original issue imposed by User:Zeagler was "Notability". According to WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." Thus, according to WP:WEB which states "This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria: 3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" The Full Armor of God Broadcast article has references to multiple internet broadcasters who have the show name published on the program schedules on websites. This should be satisfactory enough to verify notability as per Wikipedia policy. Syndicated radio shows as a member of the media are not neccesarily known by much literary publication (the media ussually does nto write about the media). So the most valuable place for a syndicated radio show to be published is on the program schedule of radio staions airing the program. According to WP:SOURCES "Electronic media may also be used." So with that noted, according to Wikipedia policy this article certainly has a significant amount of Notability (which was the original reason for WP:DP.

Hence, I motion for this nomination for deletion to be withdrawn and the article to remain on a probationary status pending all further charges to be submitted through the wiki contributors and admin present in this proccess. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I'm not withdrawing the nomination, and here's why:
  1. None of the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY have been met.
    • Comment This statment is incorrect. All of The Full Armor of God Broadcast programming is digitally distributed via http://FullArmorRadio.com (as noted on the website). WP:WEB States "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with our policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that primary sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability, web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. WP:WEB does not apply to this article. It doesn't matter that the broadcast delivers episodes to its outlets via the Internet. Some of the outlets in turn disseminate the show via terrestrial radio, therefore the show is not solely distributed on the Internet. But even if it were, are any of the outlets respected (as called for by WP:WEB)? Seems they're either small Christian college radio stations, low-power radio stations, or SHOUTcast stations (which anyone can set up).
    • Comment You originally claimed "Can't find coverage of this radio show anywhere outside of its own website. Zeagler (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)" Than you acknowledge that coverage is present just not good enough for you (not based WP:N but your own opinion.) Than you escalate the matter by trying to discredit the stations. Also, some of these stations that Mr. Zeagler considers insignificant small staions are listed on Wikipedia.. Is Mr. Zeagler going to go after them for deletion too?? WP:N "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice". It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may contribute." The Full Armor of God Broadcast is clearly not high profile, main stream corporate Christian Music Industry sponsored radio. That is not the question here. it is clearly and underground, counter culture entity. It's level of notability is established within it's own scope of UNDERGROUND Christian Metal, not the main stream. Many mainstream artist have endorse the show after acheiving a higher level of notability to honor the street credibility of The Full Armor of God Broadcast. The show is not known for corporate "sell out", thus it's underground appeal and notability.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. An entry in a radio station schedule does not constitute significant treatment of the subject. Mere name-dropping does not establish notability.
    • Comment PLEASE REFERNCE THIS STATEMENT! WP:WEB "3)The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;" I do not see where your subjective inturpretaion of this policy applies.173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. That bit about electronic media at WP:SOURCES means one can reference television or radio programs, etc. For example, I can reference this week's episode of NOVA in the article on Hugh Everett III. (A reference to this week's episode of The Full Armor of God, however, will not help to establish the notability of The Full Armor of God.) —Zeagler (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The references to Full Armor of God Broadcast archives are listed only to reference notable guests, which also verifies some additional notability. However according to WP:N Notability does not neccessarily = fame or popularity. Your inturptetaions of Wiki policy are "fast & loose" and you are clearly taking liberties with the verbage to support your desire to have article removed. This is looking more like Ahab and the White Whale than of Wikipedia moderation on your part. It is all written down in clear black & white. You are subjectively picking and choosing what you feel supports your arguement.WP:N " This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines and other media, podcasts, webcomics, web hosts, and web portals. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content."173.88.28.69 (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Reply "Give The Devil A Blackeye" is a slogan used regularly on the program and was not directed towards the those pushing for deletion on this discussion in any way, but to encourage those familiar with the program. Please don't misunderstand the nature of the comment. I think it is very important to stay focussed on the essentials here. I do not see ANYTHING about "in-depth coverage" in WP:RS I am not sure why this keeps getting brought up?? Note: at this point User:Drawn Some is citing "in-depth coverage" is required as apposed users prior claims that subject is a "HOAX" and "Viral Marketing Scheme". It appears that Notability has been established according to WP:N, WP:WEB & WP:ORG. Here are the references that meet these guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast#References Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the "Basic criteria" section at WP:N. I refer to WP:RS a lot because the sources being used are either not reliable sources or the content is trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was asked above what would be required to save this article according to the criteria I stated. That is actually fairly simple. If two sources which meet WP:RS criteria are found which provide significant coverage for the subject, it qualifies to be kept. Reliable sources in this context would include either print magazines, online equivalents which meet RS standards, encyclopedia entries of some sort or other, etc. If two of them can be found, that would verify that the article meets notability criteria. They might also be sufficient to have a Wikipedia:Deletion review request allow the article to be restored. Personally, that would be the option I think most likely to succeed here. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh.... what about the references listed on the page? Take the canvassing out of the equation. A list of radio stations the program plays at seems, to me, to be good enough for a list of references for notability, and it's a lot more than some radio shows on Wikipedia have. 5minutes (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references only confirm the show's existence, not its notability. Take the other articles out of the equation. —Zeagler (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please explain how you came to this conclusion aside from obvious connection with ThemFromSpace based on your user page? The implication seems to be that you don't consider the subject to have enough populatity or fame by your personal standards. WP:N clearly define that "Notabiltiy" is not based on poularity or fame". Subject is not self-published.173.88.39.37 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (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.
More