- 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 no consensus. Mr.Z-man 03:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WTPRN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable; promotional Tom Harrison Talk 14:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 26,000 Google hits link to lots of independent coverage. Also, the article notes several blue-linked hosts. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There are a lot of blog references, but no clear reliable source. I found this article from The Boston Globe that mentions the Radio Network in passing. Technically, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. However given the large number of blog references, I am inclined to ignore the rule in the interest of improving Wikipedia. Axl (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. Article fails to establish notability of the subject and appears promotional in nature. The combination is fatal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2008 (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.