The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result wasspeedy keep. per SK1 - I'm wrapping this up as it's becoming long and tiresome for everyone and myself, I'm closing on the fact sources were provided, As I said below I appreciate it's a community radio station and I appreciate sources aren't gonna be amazing but sources need to be better than just mentions but I know in a few days/weeks time this'll be closed as Keep so I'm wrapping it up now, Meh I guess mentions are better than nothing(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk19:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raidió Fáilte (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log ·Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL)

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't anything significant other than rado station listings that link to the station. LittleWP:RS coverage found even though it has been around for several years.ww2censor (talk)10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Radio-related deletion discussions.North America¹⁰⁰⁰17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of News media-related deletion discussions.North America¹⁰⁰⁰17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions.North America¹⁰⁰⁰17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Organizations-related deletion discussions.North America¹⁰⁰⁰17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't know whether we are looking up the same station,User:Davey2010 andUser:Ww2censor? Here are a number of reliable sources:
  • The Economist
  • Radio Survivor
  • The Atlantic
  • Belfast Telegraph

Clear keepAusLondonder (talk)08:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of those sources you provided make more than a passing mention that the station exists, except for the RadioSurvivor one which is actually based, word for word, onthis Ofcom report whose quote was extracted from the radio stations own annual report (see page 11). So I don't see anysignificant coverage as required byWP:GNG.ww2censor (talk)11:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ww2censor is bang on - They're all just mentions ... Don't get me wrong I don't expect sources on community stations to be amazing but I do expect them to be a little bit better than just random mentions, As an aside after the recent controversy with The Atlantic I'd rather not use them anyway. –Davey2010^Talk11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ww2censor That just isn't true. The Belfast Telegraph article is entirely about the station. You said "I can't anything significant other than rado station listings that link to the station" which is evidently wrong. The other articles cover the station in sufficient detail.AusLondonder (talk)01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Davey2010. For a small community station the sources are excellent. The Belfast Telegraph article is entirely about the station. In your nom you say "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else". I believe the nomination is misleading and should be withdrawn on that basis. RegardingThe Atlantic how interesting and convenient you have unilaterally decided you'd "rather not used them anyway". Unfortunately that is not how it works. If you believeThe Atlantic is not a reliable source in the context of community radio you should take that toWP:RS/N. If the reason you'd "rather not" use theAtlantic is because of their story about the gender gap and misogyny on Wikipedia, a very important story irrespective of minor errors, then you are being ratherWP:POINTy andWP:IDONTLIKEIT.AusLondonder (talk)01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.AusLondonder (talk)01:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in thelist of Ireland-related deletion discussions.AusLondonder (talk)01:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are much smaller stations than this and they all have better sourcing and so this should too, There's nothing misleading about this nomination and it's not going to be withdrawn not unless you or someone else can provide better sources than those provided, I stated "as an aide" and there's a big difference between "I'd rather not use them" and "They're not being used end of" (What I'm trying to say is I don't think they should be used but I'd obviously not stop anyone from adding it) .... You do realize nitpicking at everything here won't achieve your desired outcome .... As I said unless someone comes up with better sources than I'm afraid this AFD's heading one way. –Davey2010^Talk02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is acceptable in my view. Do you have any reason at all you feelThe Atlantic cannot be used? I think what is misleading is that you stated in the nom that "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else". How could this be true?AusLondonder (talk)02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ok, you disagree, so let's be precise.The Atlantic while generally a good source, all this link says about the radio station is:Belfast's eclectic indie Raidio Failte have been broadcasting entirely in Irish for several years. So, all its says is that the station exists. I've already commented on why theRadio Survivor is not a good source in this instance. TheBelfast Telegraph only says they were going to interview Ian Paisley, whileThe Economist states the station broadcasts over the internet and that some protestants listen to it. TheWP:POINT is that there is no significant coverage to be seen. Provide some and I'll be happy to change me opinion because I never suggested thatWP:IDONTLIKEIT,. Surely you can do better then that?ww2censor (talk)10:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AfD about a community radio station. Once again: British regulator OFCOM gives out very few broadcast licenses, so on its own that should make the stations notable. And the same editoralways starts the discussion with exactly the same line, and in the majority of cases it is not accurate. The fact is that these stations are extremely local and have a local audience, so there is no need for them to have notability outside of the area where they broadcast. So local media coverage should be more than sufficient to show notability. Has a OFCOM license, is mentioned in the local media as being a local radio station - should mean that it is notable. If it has a mention in The Atlantic, this should be more than sufficient.Keep.JMWt (talk)17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah as we've discussed a million and one times no one gives a flying toss about Ofcom - It doesn't prove notability despite what you or the essay (which isn't policy!) states, Mentions as you've been repeatedly told aren't good enough either, As I've said I'm more than happy to withdraw these AFDs if one can prove it's an actual notable station... –Davey2010^Talk18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it is pretty clear that it is virtually impossible to "prove" to you a station is notable when you reject coverage in the international press.AusLondonder (talk)18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect toList of radio stations in the United Kingdom. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article of its own.Onel5969^{TT me}18:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've began to remove redlinked/deleted articles on the table, As it stands the table is useless information wise (There's not much info on the table so redirecting IMHO is pointless and seeing as half of my nominated radio stations have been deletedit makes sense to just delete the lot instead of deleting 98% and perhaps redirecting 2% of the stations :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One question I have: Why didUser:Davey2010 state "Can't find anythingat all on Google or anywhere else" when I, with one Google search, foundThe Economist,The Atlantic and theBelfast Telegraph?AusLondonder (talk)19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• As long as a radio station can bereliably sourced asexisting, rather than relyingexclusively on its own self-published web presence for verification, then perWP:NMEDIA the station does not need to makeany further claim of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station. The volume of sourcing does not need to be spectacular — the station's existence just needs to be properlyverifiable in at least one or two sources independent of its ownself-published web presence. The volume of sourcing demanded by the nominator is in factimpossible for somewhere between 95 and 99 per cent of all media outlets toever actually meet — because most of our sources for Wikipedia contentare media outlets, the nominator's impossibly high sourcing expectations would put the notability of nearlyall media outlets on a directcollision course with those same references'reluctance to offer the same volume of neutral and in-depth coverage to their owncompetition that we would demand in, say, aWP:BLP of aperson. So the nominator doesnot get to dismiss Ofcom as irrelevant — the existence of a license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC in the US, CRTC in Canada, Ofcom in the UK, etc.)is the main notability standard that a radio station has to meet. And the Ofcom licenseis in and of itself a legitimatesource, to boot — it is, for example, the onlypossible source for many important technical details, such as a station'sERP andHAAT statistics, that arerequired details in a radio station's article. Accordingly, once its existence as an Ofcom-licensed radio station can be properly verified in reliable sources separately from the station's own webpage, a radio station needs to makeno further claim of notability beyond that fact.Keep.Bearcat (talk)19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

. what Bearcat said. I hope all AfDs for currently broadcasting British community radio stations are rejected - as they all meet this standard.JMWt (talk)19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Restoring comment removed by Davey2010)AusLondonder (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)It's extraordinary someone would devote so much time to trying to gut coverage of community radio rather than improving anything.AusLondonder (talk)19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I hadn't removed your comment so not sure what happened there (I'm assuming edit conflict?), I appreciate it's a community radio station and I appreciate sources aren't going to be amazing but all community stations I've come across have somewhat better sources (even the unknown ones) which is why they're not here, I would rather withdraw but all articles here need better sources, –Davey2010^Talk19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearcat - I don't expect sourcing to be amazing but they need to be somewhat better than just mentions, Ofcom doesn't prove notability and NMEDIA's not a policy, It's like saying articles on companies should be kept because they're registered on the UK Companies House register ....., As I said all sources above are just mentions and being registered with Ofcom isn't a pass to an article. –Davey2010^Talk19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• JMWt - They meet no standard whatsoever. –Davey2010^Talk19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.