Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Monash (2nd nomination)

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 redirect. Admins are not slaves, and while {{Afd-mergeto}} is a good idea, it doesn't always work. If anyone wants to work on the merger afterwards, they can do so from the edit history. Mango juice^talk 14:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Monash

This article was already nominated for deletion and the consensus was to merge. Not only has the merger not been attempted, but the editors appear to have abandoned the article since [1]. The article therefore still fails to meet notability guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 00:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Monash University. Only 481 Google hits isn't very notable. Useight 01:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it had its chance as a merge. It failed. Student activity at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was supposed to be merged. Oyster guitarist 03:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worth a brief mention on the Monash University article but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 03:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge Per prev discussions on the ground it lacks WP:N to stand on it's own. Thewinchester ^(talk) 03:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Some might take Coren's comment here to mean that Coren has volunteered to complete the merge. Other than that, nothing has changed since last time.Ga rr ie 04:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; it was. It was also made clear that my participation was not welcome. Rather than throw oil on the fire, I stayed away. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies then, that part isn't at the article's talk page.Ga rr ie 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That occured on the Monash University talk, actually. — Coren ^(talk) 03:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why delete something that should be merged? Are there guidelines on who who merge something once an AfD comes up with merge if the original authors aren't available? Nicko (Talk•Contribs) 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monash University. *drew 09:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Monash University. Someone "broadcasting" on the internet is not inherently notable, as the operation might be if they had a broadcast license. There is but one reference which appears to satisfy WP:A. Their period of "temporarily" licensed broadcasting in the past helps make the case for notability, but apparently it was a less than full license. The really unintentionally funny parts of the article are the claim they they operated for many years as a "pirate" station, apparently broadcasting over the loudspeakers of the PA system in a building, as if no one could have disconnected them from the PA amplifier, and that they got an AM license, but for a frequency that could not be picked up by normal AM radios. Perhaps somewhere there are references to clarify these impressions. The campus newspaper probably ran several stories about the station over the years, if someone would take the time to look through their files. Edison 16:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough those appear to actually be true - those were relatively well sourced claims from a presentation by a Monash academic at a conference. (I found it amusing too. :)) Orderinchaos 11:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No action please - the summary at the article is a bullet point with a link back to the page. It can not conceivably accomodate a merge. This would effectively delete any notable points from its forty year history, no appropriate reason for deleting it has been given. Comment: This process has once again seen important procedures ignored and it is left to sneering uncreators to cause significant harm to harmless and notable articles. Specious reasoning by editors, with the merest glance toward identifying notability, are often accompanied by a pattern of deletion and a pack mentality; seemingly as a substitute for actual improvements or in reaction to some past slight. This topic lacks contributors, not notability. Closing admins should note this: that one should not expect articles only from full time contributors, who are willing to educate any willfully ignorant 'voters' at AfD. If this article was on a commercial enterprise, or some ephemeral bit of television, its survival would be assured. Create, improve and merge when appropriate, deletion needs careful judgement and qualified views. Pardon my opinions, but this is unproductive! Fred ☻ 12:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete, nothing has changed since last time - this is still not a notable internet broadcaster. If there is resistance to its merger, then it should be deleted. Lankiveil 08:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Merge/Delete per Lankiveil (couldn't have worded it better myself.) Orderinchaos 08:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete as above. Perhaps a better merge target would be Monash Student Association rather than the university article though, as this "station" seems to be run primarily by that association. MichelleG 10:34, 22 July 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.