Deletion of Full Armor of God Broadcast (2nd nomination)

Comment: Listing of stations and syndication is not likely to be enough to establish |notability. Citing advertising won't, either, as it has been pointed out, anyone can buy an ad. Listing the bands that the program covered may be of interest to some, but it doesn't hold value toward establishing notability. As many others have expressed, what you really would need is coverage in Wikipedia:No original research|independent Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources. For instance, if I wanted to write about a media organization such as a magazine, I'd find references to that magazine in other sources (as in 7ball|this article), rather than list the cover of every issue (like someone does in Relevant Magazine|this one). Another example: While researching National Christian Network|this tv network I found an ad listing programs aired. But it's not the programming that makes the network notable per Wikipedia, wiktionary:per se|per se (The PTL Club|some exceptions may be argued), it's the off-network coverage
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: and salt the article. Armorbearer777 is blatantly violating  and  as he is clearly non-neutral on the topic and unable to write in a fully neutrally about it. The broadcast is not any more notable than it was the last time the article was created. TomPointTwo, you make an interesting point, however in this case, this is not just an matter of someone being interested in a local interest or a heavily active and well-experienced editor making careful neutral edits to an article about an organization they are associated with (for example, my adding well sourced history to some of the A&M state agency articles), but someone whose job may be engaging in paid editing (even if the internship is unpaid) by his employer. If Armorbearer777 truly understands the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to him, he will voluntarily tag his copies for deletion, and accept that if this broadcast ever becomes notable, someone else will create the article is not involved in it and that he should not edit it anymore. However, as he is cross-posting parts of his arguments all over the place, I'd say he really isn't understanding it as much as some think. And yes, policy does prohibit this sort of thing. Wikipedia is  for advertising and creating notability, it violates  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:ADVERT||WP:NOT||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: A program carried on just seven stations does not meet notability standards. No '''''independent, reliable sources''''' are cited. The author admits to a |conflict of interest, and his edit history tends to indicate his is a |single-purpose account focused solely on promoting the program on Wikipedia, bordering on M|spam. This is pretty clear-cut to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:SPA||WP:SPAM)

Comment: As a member of Wikiproject Radio I'd insist on : specifically coverage by 3rd party sources independent of the subject which are other than program listings
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Article has ''declined'' significantly since the last deletion discussion. Right now, it's probably bad enough to be a speedy deletion candidate. Before, the article talked about how the broadcast aired on around 70 radio stations, which is significant enough to be considered as a national program. Now it airs on three radio stations, which is not significant. Very many radio stations air on iTunes and the internet, so that not a claim of notability. I've been asked by the contributor with a conflict of interest how the article can be saved. Right now, it can't be without a complete rewrite. I'll answer the question here. You need to get back to the basics - multiple independent |reliable sources show |notability. You need to find major publications like books, national magazines, newspapers which have articles focused on the topic. Having sources that are specific to the topic, like Christian metal radio magazines, work well. I know that they are hard to come by, since mainstream sources won't touch any Christian music topics. I'd guess that at least a few exist. Just because many Wikipedians won't recognize them by name doesn't make them invalid. I suggest that before you post an article in mainspace again, that you contact a veteran Wikipedian like myself to see if the article has a chance to not be deleted via #G4|Speedy Deletion criteria G4. This isn't even close
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:CSD)

Comment: due to potential |COI issue on this article. '''Comment to author''': whatever you write about this subject, it would be subject to COI issues and has little chance to survive. If it's truly notable, someone else would write an article on it, or at least make significant contributions to it. There must be a reason after this lengthy discussion, very little support was gathered (btw, I also failed to establish its notability myself - lacking ghits apart from myspace, facebook and various profile templates). Your contribution to Wikipedia is appreciated, but try work on a different subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I have the same opinion as I had during the last debate: that this has yet to pass our |notability guidelines. Hopefully this debate won't be marred by canvassing like the previious
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Insurmountable |COI concerns have prevented |NPOV from prevailing during the notability discussion.  Let it die, and when (if) the program has grown, let someone else who is not involved create the article.  Remember, |Wikipedia is not going anywhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:NPOV||WP:DEADLINE)