Orphaned non-free media (Image:WTKR-TV.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:WTKR-TV.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"Controversy," when not documented by other forms of media, is trivial. This article, in particular, has a user that routinely adds every little thing that the radio station does to it. Unfortunately, this makes the article read more like an advertisement or publicity release than a legitimate Wikipedia article. For those reasons, I removed the "Controversies" section and Semi-Protected the article. The user that is making these edits is a registered user and can still contribute, but perhaps they will feel compelled to make more relevant edits in the future.
I have reverted back to my edits, as such. I have also started a thread on the article's talk page about the protection, please feel free to continue this particular discussion there. Thanks! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your comments are noted, thank you. How would I go about requesting a level of protection for the article? Also, I recognize that there are "Controversy" sections on other articles of this nature, but I hardly believe that the material noted under that heading in this article qualifies as worthy of inclusion. There have been, to date, no other mentions of this "controversy" in other forms of media (other radio, television, or print), thus it is merely something noticed by a listener / group of listeners that may or may not be true.
- Also, in regard to Myspace links, I am aware that links to the station's Myspace is perfectly acceptable. However, I don't think that you can honestly include a link to a personality's (at least the notability [read: minor] of these personalities) page on Wikipedia without it being viewed as an advertisement, which Wikipedia is not.--InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)