Deletion of Full Armor of God Broadcast

Comment: It appears that the guidelines of  have been met within the article, where reference is made to the various radio stations that the program is playing on various radio stations, both on the internet and on the air.  Also, the while the OP's comments regarding not being able to find any reference to the program outside of their website may be true, it would possibly be because he's not used Google to do a cursory search of the program.  Doing so, I found references to the program at online radio stations, band websites, social media, and message boards.  While the program may not be as notable as, say, Howard Stern's show or the Rush Limbaugh Program, it is notable within the context of the subject of Christian Metal.  Perhaps the original poster is unaware of this notability.  Either way, the basic guidelines of Wikipedia's standards are being followed, and deleting this article is neither necessary nor within the bounds of those standards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)

Comment: No evidence of "significant coverage in |reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; thus, the article fails the |GNG. Appearing on a schedule does not constitute significant coverage, and the fame of guests does not affect the notability of the program. We can't be the first to write about it in detail; someone has to have done so before us, which doesn't seem to be the case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: Pretty much per Deor. I can't find any hits for this on http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Full+Armor+of+God+Broadcast&cf=all google news and nothing that meets  from a regular google search.  Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources seals the deal. And as obvious as it is, I can't ''not'' point out the obvious |canvassing going on behind the scenes
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CANVASS)

Comment: Wow. It took me 20 minutes just to wade through the AfD.  This does not, from my estimation, meet the minimum threshold of .  The refs include are either a) self-published (useful for info, but not establishing note), and b) trivial, listing-type (proving existence, not notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: The subject does not meet ; despite the heavy canvassing, no one has been able to present even one reliable source with significant coverage on the program
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: According to  "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content." According to  "web-specific content3 is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria" and listed therein "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" There is certainly enough reference to such to establish minimum requirements for Notability here. As far as |canvassing is concerened there seems to be more chronnyism present with the  opposition to this article.Special:Contributions/173.88.44.186|173.88.44.186
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:WEB||WP:CANVASS)

Comment: WP:MUSIC doesn't cover radio stations, therefore this article is under , which says: ''"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"''. A had a look on the sources and at this point, I do not see a very sufficient coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources in this article. So I '''recommend''' to the creators/contributors of this page to back up the content, find reliable sources and then add them or (if the page gets deleted before you do so) to recreate the page '''with''' reliable sources. (If it gets deleted before you back it up, ask the admin who deleted it.) '''But''' take into account that (if it gets deleted and) you will not be able to find additional/some reliable secondary sources, you don't need to recreate the page, because the sourcing is not very convincing at the moment. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG)