Talk:Northern Alliance Radio Network

Removed Tags

I removed the COI tag; nobody could show any examples of how my involvement in the subject has caused any POV issues.

I removed the notability tag; the show draws 20,000 podcast downloads a week, and books presidential candidates as guests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchberg (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot about the signing...

Mitchberg (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the notability tag. The radio station that carries the show covers an area with more than 1.5 million people. As Mitch said, it draws 20,000 podcast downloads per week, from all over the country. They interview prominent politicians and play a prominent role in local politics. The NARN is mosst certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. Prnd3825 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I will also remove the conflict of interest tag. If someone can cite where one of Mitch's edits displays any bias towards the organization of which he is a part, then add the tag back. After reading the whole article, I see no bias. Prnd3825 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Summation

This article was written in August of 2005. In over two years, there wasn't a single question about the article's notability.

The "notability" criteria as applied here (and as I noted in my remarks below) are fairly myopic. The Northern Alliance is a new media outlet, composed of new media figures. To say its references are primarily on blogs and forums - new media, by definition - doesn't establish notability ignores the context; the program has interviewed Presidential candidates (Mitt Romney), governors, A-list pundits, and so on.

As far as point of view goes - nobody has shown any examples of point of view or conflict of interest in the piece. Any luck so far?

Finally - as I noted below, I've largely abandoned Wikipedia; trying to edit anything remotely political draws a horde of Kossacks; Wikipedia is in the process of marginalizing itself, at least when anything remotely political is at issue. So it's interesting that after two years without a single comment, the"notability" and "conflict" tags pop up within weeks after a couple of regional leftybloggers wrote a tittery article about my Wikipedia edits.

While I don't really care - and doubt I'll follow through on this - I'm going to give everyone a month, give or take, to establish any actual conflict, POV or notability problems. And then I'm going to remove the taqs.

Mitchberg (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest?

User A. B. (talk · contribs) recently added a {{coi}} tag to this article, presumably because frequent editor Mitchberg (talk · contribs) is the Mitch Berg mentioned in the article. Fair enough. (See also this message on Mitchberg's talk page.)

However, I do not see any obvious POV or other problems with the article. Is there something I'm missing? Cheers, CWC 14:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it mostly for people to keep an eye on it going forward. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wrote the piece, almost two years ago. I think someone might need to do a little more home work about "notability" - if the Stadelheim Transmitter qualifies, then I fail to see how the Northern Alliance doesn't; for four years, it's been the first all-blogger radio program; we draw presidential candidates and A-list pundits and authors.

As Chris notes, I could be perceived as having a conflict of interest - but I fairly strictly abjured making any POV statements in the piece.

As to folding it into WWTC - on the one hand I don't much care. I've come to believe editing Wikipedia, at least on subject where there's any political exposure, is a complete waste of time. On the other hand, the show isn't purely about WWTC; we're on the 'net, and if WWTC went out of business tomorrow the show would likely carry on.

But I also think it's interesting that this article ran un-noticed for about two years, until a couple of regional left-wing bloggers wrote a piece about my wikipedia editing history (I've edited a few piece on stories in which I'm involved - although, again, one can not find a single bit of POV in any of them). I question whether the tagging isn't itself POV-based.

Mitchberg (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The tag for a GUIDELINE about Conflict of Interest is ridiculous in this case. Reading and absorbing the full COI page one ought to realize that (1) The absence of a POV edit negates the application of COI tagging. The COI guideline states "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits...If another good faith editor objects, then it's controversial." There has not been any presentation of an objection to a Mitchberg edit on the NARN article. This absence in the months since this tag was placed should be viewed as a concession that the COI tag is not applicable. (2) The following quotes from the COI page go hand in hand. "[A]n editor with a self-evident conflict of interest turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight" and "Many Wikipedians show their allegiances and affiliations on their user pages." Considering this [diff] done by Mitchberg on Feb 20, 2006 implies him being affiliated with NARN it is reasonable to consider that edit as a declaration of that affiliation.

Obviously there is no basis for the tag, it has been on the page for a considerable amount of time all without any justification. Simply tagging an article for the sake of "keep[ing] an eye on it [in the future]" is a poor purpose and poor precedent. If this standard for a COI tag is accepted imagine the similar standard being applied throughout Wikipedia...nearly every article would have the tag. (I do appreciate the rationale presented by the tagger but find it contrary to common sense.)

I propose the removal of the tag in absence of a reasonable justification (beyond condemnation for something not yet done). -- Tony G 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability?

• Google search results: just 196 unique hits ^[1][2] I did not look at every one
• Google News search results: 1 hit[3] -- blog post
• Google News Archive search results: 2 hits, one accessible -- is it a blog or a reliable source as defined by the Notability Guideline? ^[4] It discusses both Time magazine's selection of the closely-related Power Line blog as "Blog of the Year" and the Northern Alliance Radio Network. If it's a blog it doesn't establish the notability of the Northern Alliance Radio Network ; if it's a reliable source, then it does. Searching Time Inc.'s site, I got hits for the Power Line blog but not the Northern Alliance Radio Network.

Anyone have opinions on that webpronews.com post? Any additional citations to establish notability would also be helpful. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Past uses of webpronews.com in AfDs:

• Articles citing webpronews.com that were deleted:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Pfeiffer
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soccergirl
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothador
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micropreneur
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John La Tourrette
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlock Reality
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gothador
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexipedia
    • Closed as "keep" but later deleted. Discussion included several other weak references.

• Articles citing webpronews.com that were not deleted:
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Schwartz (technologist)
    • Notability was established otherwise with other sources
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kopimi
    • Closed as "delete"; later recreated as a redirect to Piratbyrån, the sponsoring organization.
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amapedia
    • Closed as no consensus; webpronews was one of 4 references cited including cnn.com
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackle.com
    • One of 8 references cited however others included major newspapers
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)
    • Closed as delete more for BLP reasons than notability; webpronews citation doesn't seem to have been a factor

--A. B. ^(talk) 15:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Webpronews seems to carry a lot of press releases as well as original news items and commentary, and that item reads like a press release to me. So I wouldn't count it.

I skimmed over the first 150 Google results for "Northern Alliance Radio Network" without seeing any notability-establishing items. That doesn't mean there aren't any, it just means the first 150 hits are all from blogs, forums, etc. Cheers, CWC 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You say the article isnt' notable because tje "first 150 hits are all from blogs, forums". Since the Northern Alliance is an alternative media production (a radio talk show) composed of alternative media figures (bloggers), doesn't that stand to reason?

And why wouldn't notability within the context of the alternative media (itself a notable concept) qualify as notable?

The "notability" criteria seem myopic in this case. See also my remarks above.

Mitchberg (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for not making myself clear enough. I'm only saying that the first 150 hits failed to establish notability. Maybe #151 would establish notability? I don't know.

I agree that the "notability" criteria seem myopic, and not just in this case. Wikipedia's current "notability" rules do not handle New Media very well, IMO. For instance, searching Google for blogs and blog-related radio shows tends to find posts at popular blogs, so you have to do lots of work to find the Old Media mentions that Wikipedia rules demand. One day we'll solve this problem. CWC 08:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've restored the tags. I simply don't see evidence of notability per the criteria. Problems with the criteria should be discussed at the criteria talkpage, but unless reliable sources demonstrating notability are produced, the tag should stay. The conflict of interest tag has been restored as well. Sorry, but someone who is a member of the Alliance removing the tags from the article is a fairly clear case of conflict of interest.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)