Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken fried radio: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
That's a valid question. And a hard one to answer. What, in your opinion, would you consider the threshold for popular "enough?" |
That's a valid question. And a hard one to answer. What, in your opinion, would you consider the threshold for popular "enough?" |
||
As far as I know, chicken fried radio has an exposure of at least 3,000 people worldwide. I think whether it's popular enough is a call for you guys to make. If your main issue is whether the tone of the article sounds like self-promotion (which it shouldn't be, since non-members of said podcast created this article), this can be remedied. As far as I can tell, everything in this article are laid out as provable or disprovable facts. |
As far as I know, chicken fried radio has an exposure of at least 3,000 people worldwide. I think whether it's popular enough is a call for you guys to make. If your main issue is whether the tone of the article sounds like self-promotion (which it shouldn't be, since non-members of said podcast created this article), this can be remedied. As far as I can tell, everything in this article are laid out as provable or disprovable facts. <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Kwidge|Kwidge]] ([[User talk:Kwidge|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kwidge|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> |
||
Revision as of 22:17, 22 March 2006
Appears to be advertising or vanity. Is this podcast popular enough to have an article? - S. Komae (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's a valid question. And a hard one to answer. What, in your opinion, would you consider the threshold for popular "enough?"
As far as I know, chicken fried radio has an exposure of at least 3,000 people worldwide. I think whether it's popular enough is a call for you guys to make. If your main issue is whether the tone of the article sounds like self-promotion (which it shouldn't be, since non-members of said podcast created this article), this can be remedied. As far as I can tell, everything in this article are laid out as provable or disprovable facts. —This unsigned comment was added by Kwidge (talk • contribs) .