The usual bunch of absolute shite.
To quote NMEDIA (and yes, it was the same back then)......
Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming.
Do any of these three fucknuts look like they even tried to speak to this guidance? Bearing in mind, "local" is not necessarily equivalent to "small" in US contexts.
No.
So they can fuck off with that bullshit.
And what was said about the GNG is similarly absolute nonsense. You can pass GNG using only "local news" if that news market is big, as in, Miami Herald big. Since they showed no awareness of this, it can be presumed they weren't aware of it.
So they can fuck off with that bullshit too.
It clearly got deleted because it was about a morning show on a local radio station, and as usual, some dickhead thinks detailing every morning show on every local radio station in America is somehow NOT what Wikipedia should be doing. There should be some extra special reason why they get an article, and that is what Afd is for, in their eyes - deciding if it is special enough.
Whatever. If you don't think that's what Wikipedia should be doing, then GET OFF YOUR STUPID LAZY ASS and get that clearly written down in a Wikipedia policy so that everyone knows where they stand. It would fit quite easily in NMEDIA. It's only one line, after all. Don't waste everyone's fucking time, especially newcomers to Wikipedia, by obscuring your meaning.
You have got all kinds of dumb crap on your website, that would make normal people think you are indeed in the business of giving every radio show an article.
Fucking idiots. Never their fault, is it?
--------------
At the end of the day though, it's just another example of people wrongly assuming you need a Wikipedia page. Especially if they paid for it.
Why?
Who the hell chooses their radio station, based on whether Wikipedia thinks they're important? And what advertisers/guests/employees/owners think like that too?
Nobody. It's ratings, ratings and ratings.
So who the fuck cares about a website that doesn't even consider ratings, beyond some deliberately ambiguous measure of "large", when deciding which shows are important?
If Wikipedia mattered to anyone in the field of morning radio shows, including audiences, they would indeed have noticed their article had disappeared sooner. Far sooner. It was obviously just a slow news day.
The Wikipedians, through their official spokespeople of Wikipediocracy, are annoyed that these people didn't do their research before critiquing their deletion decisions. Uh huh. You know who doesn't research something properly before spouting off about it on the radio? People who don't care. People who AREN'T GOING TO GET SUED FOR TELLING LIES ABOUT WIKIPEDIA/NS ON THE RADIO.
It's tough, Ritchie, finding out you don't matter. Can make a man question his own worth even. Don't you get all upset now! Keep your eye on the prize. Your "serious career" at Wikipedia.
As Ritchie will surely know, over here in the UK, where only people aged over a hundred even listen to local radio, I maybe hear Wikipedia get mentioned on the NATIONAL radio about once every three months, if that.
And I swear to God, every single time, no matter the show/station, it was only as filler, almost always of the form of a famous person detailing facts Wikipedia has about them which are wrong. So I think it is safe to assume local radio doesn't get much deeper, but probably does reach for this type of filler a little more often.
Wikipedia is the ultimate "and finally" news item. And it probably can't even fairly lay claim to that either.
They're an irrelevance to 99.999999999% of people's lives.
They WISH people other than us specialists cared one way or the other.
They. Do. Not.
I don't even care. The only interest I have in this crap, is illustrating how fucking useless Wikipediocracy are at dissecting it.