Talk:KISS-FM (brand)

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus NPASR.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Okay, open the flaming floodgates...

Like many radio related articles, this one violated many of Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, which is probably why it got flagged as inappropriate.

The areas that I've specifically tried to clean up with this revision are:

1) Articles should not contain language predicting future events. For instance, Clear Channel has annoucned its intention to "go private", but that process is not complete and could change due to unexpected events (like government intervention or shareholder objections). The most you can say is that they have announced plans (which is a reference to a past event). Speculating about which stations may be divested or which may or may not keep the KISS-FM format is not appropriate.

2) Unsourced statements of fact. There were (and still are) no verifiable sources stated in the original article. The claims about legal action stating each side's position may not be accurate and I've left only a few references in them in the hopes that someone will provide an actual citation or source.

3) Neutral Point of View. Statements which characterize Clear Channel as evil or their motives as sinister violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirement. Especially when a competitor may have written some of the text, the tone of the information presented can easily slip into non-neutral

4) Unrelated material. The topic of this article is the KISS-FM radio format. It is not about radio formats in general, or about Clear Channel Communications. I've attempted to remove repetitive statements, controversial statements unsupported by sources and unrelated material. But since I am not in the radio business and not directly aware of the actual facts, that has left the result a bit choppy. What would really help is if some actual sources could be used rather than people's memories.

The article also freely interchanged the terms copyright, trademark, brand, and moniker to describe what KISS-FM is and the basis of the legal action. I am not a lawyer. I did a search of the USPTO database, and the only KISS-FM trademark is a logo with the imprint of a pair of lips (Reg# 156452), which was signed over to Citicasters (now part of Clear Channel) in 1998. Frankly, all of the controversy section should probably be removed unless someone with actual legal knowledge of the intellectual property issues and facts can provide a clearer explanation of the facts in each case. StreamingRadioGuide 17:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]