Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/107.5 Switch Radio
- 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
107.5_Switch_Radio
- 107.5_Switch_Radio (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)
Does not pass WP:GNG, there is nothing specifically notable about this radio station. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 02:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Have you read WP:PERNOM yet? --TL22 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Technically, Wikipedia's baseline criterion for the notability of a radio station is that it has a broadcast license from the appropriate media-regulation authority (the FCC in the United States, the CRTC in Canada, OFCOM in the UK, etc.) — any station which has that is always a valid topic for an article, but that "validity in principle" does not confer an exemption from the article having to be properly written and sourced. This article, however, is resting entirely on primary sources — and is only just barely removed from being speediable as blatant advertising (the lack of advertorial adjectives being about the only thing that keeps it from falling over the line.) And no radio station, even if it is officially eligible for an article, gets to keep that kind of article. Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a better and more properly sourced version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat, what are you talking about? Having a broadcast license is not a qualification in any way. Radio stations must meet regular WP:GNG. See WP:BROADCAST —МандичкаYO 😜 16:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect you're misunderstanding my point, if you think it's in conflict with yours. I didn't say that sources didn't have to be there — in fact, I specifically said that they do have to be there. If an article is properly sourced, however, then a radio station does not have to claim any special or unique notability above and beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — the broadcast license is all it takes for the radio station to be eligible to have a properly sourced article written about it, but the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided is still what determines whether we actually keep or delete any particular version of that article. And this isn't properly sourced in the least, which is why I argued to delete — but if a new, better article can be written which does cite proper sourcing, then it would be eligible to keep that version. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat, I know what you're saying and you're not correct - the broadcast license is totally irrelevant to eligibility and irrelevant to anything relating to a Wikipedia article. Have you never heard of Category:Pirate radio stations? —МандичкаYO 😜 17:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're still misunderstanding (and I'm a longstanding member of WP:WPRS, actually one of the original creators of that project and one of the drafters of WP:NMEDIA, so I'm hardly somebody who needs to be educated on the finer points of a guideline I wrote in the first place.) Nothing I said above discounts the possibility of a pirate radio station also being considered notable — but that takes being able to properly source enough notability, above and beyond the mere fact of its existence, to counter the lack of a license with a "got covered enough to satisfy WP:GNG" claim. For a duly licensed radio station, however, the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article — that article can still be deleted as an advertisement if it's written and sourced this badly, but if the article were properly sourced then the license itself would be all the notability that it takes to make the article keepable. That doesn't negate the necessity of sourcing the article properly — an article can still be deleted if it's this bad, but we just can't deem it permanently ineligible to have a better article recreated in the future. And neither does it discount the possibility of a pirate station also clearing the bar for other reasons independent of its licensing status — pirates can still qualify if there's enough sourcing to demonstrate a cultural influence beyond the mere fact of existing, and just don't get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- "the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article."← This does not make sense so I must not be understanding. The license is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with anything, and it's not a factor in any way, shape or form. It makes no difference toward "eligibility" for an article. If this is any kind of guideline, why is not mentioned in WP:NMEDIA (or anywhere else)? Maybe things have changed since the "old days" because there is no "eligibility" for anything. Any possible thing in the world is "eligible" if it meets GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let me try this in different words, then: if an article about a duly licensed radio station is properly sourced (which, again, I said right up front that this isn't), then you cannot take it to AFD on the grounds that it would have to pass any higher notability bar beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — we do not separate licensed radio stations into distinct "notable" and "non-notable" classes on any criterion beyond their licensing status. If it's written and sourced this badly, then yes, it can absolutely be nuked and paved as a WP:NOTADVERT violation, with no prejudice and no permanent injunction against the future recreation of a properly sourced new article. (Pirate stations can still be eligible for articles if you can source a substantive claim of notability independent of their licensing status, but they're not automatically eligible to have an article just because they exist — it takes a higher volume of reliable source coverage to get a pirate into Wikipedia than it does for a licensed radio station, but neither class of radio station gets to rest on no reliable sourcing.) Again, this article is not properly sourced, and is fully deletable in this form — we're in complete agreement on that. But if the article were properly sourced, then the fact of having a broadcast license would be the only notability claim it had to make, and it would not have to demonstrate any special level of notability beyond that fact. But for the moment, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion — even though we both expressed the same opinion on the keepability or deletability of this article, you're quibbling with something I said about how the article might become salvageable, instead of with the position that we share on the actual article that we're actually looking at? Even though, when you get right down to it, we're actually saying the same thing (i.e. reliable sourcing) about how the article might become keepable too — and so you're really just arguing with the wording I'm using to express the same thing you are? Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, however, I don't see anywhere that information is listed; ie if someone were to claim that in an AfD, where would they find that vital piece of information? It seems that that might be something that was discussed at some point, but is not in the actual guideline or any essays. As you see, it's not in WP:NMEDIA. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I think what Мандичка was trying to say is that the license does not give notability to an article. I wasn't able to find anything that says otherwise. Having a license does not allow an article to pass WP:GNG, at least from what I have seen. I might be missing something on the finer details of what a license does and does not entitle an article to. I was basing this AFD an the sole grounds that there was nothing specifically notable about it, not as much so the references and writing of the article. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 03:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- If the article is sourced properly — which this absolutely isn't — then a radio station doesn't have to have anything "special" about it beyond the fact of having a broadcast license. The license doesn't get the station over GNG by itself if proper sourcing isn't present, but I never said that it did. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, lets assume that the article is properly written and with quality secondary sources. I haven't been able to find where a broadcasting license alone would give it notability? Maybe im missing something, but I havent found anything on that. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 03:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NMEDIA, primary criterion: A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. In other words, as long as proper sourcing is present in the article to give it a WP:GNG pass, no media outlet — no newspaper, no radio station, no television station, etc. — actually has to make any special claim of notability above and beyond "it exists and these reliable sources prove it". See also WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to start posting links as which is greater than the other but WP:ORG is wikipedia policy. I know that your a lot, lot more experienced on wikipedia than I am, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your trying to say. On WP:ORG it says that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." and this should be deferred to over any conflict over the WP:NMEDIA or WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing I said in that comment, or indeed anywhere in this entire discussion, is in any kind of conflict with that passage from WP:ORG — that passage is exactly what I've been saying the whole freaking time: if proper reliable sources are present in the article — though they aren't here, which is why I argued to delete — then the radio station does not need to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact of existing as a licensed radio station, because the sources satisfy WP:GNG and WP:ORG in and of themselves. There's no conflict between what I said and what WP:ORG says, which is why I don't understand how we've gotten so bogged down on this tangent. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't want to start posting links as which is greater than the other but WP:ORG is wikipedia policy. I know that your a lot, lot more experienced on wikipedia than I am, I'm just trying to make sure I understand what your trying to say. On WP:ORG it says that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." and this should be deferred to over any conflict over the WP:NMEDIA or WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 15:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- WP:NMEDIA, primary criterion: A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. In other words, as long as proper sourcing is present in the article to give it a WP:GNG pass, no media outlet — no newspaper, no radio station, no television station, etc. — actually has to make any special claim of notability above and beyond "it exists and these reliable sources prove it". See also WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, lets assume that the article is properly written and with quality secondary sources. I haven't been able to find where a broadcasting license alone would give it notability? Maybe im missing something, but I havent found anything on that. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 03:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- If the article is sourced properly — which this absolutely isn't — then a radio station doesn't have to have anything "special" about it beyond the fact of having a broadcast license. The license doesn't get the station over GNG by itself if proper sourcing isn't present, but I never said that it did. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I think what Мандичка was trying to say is that the license does not give notability to an article. I wasn't able to find anything that says otherwise. Having a license does not allow an article to pass WP:GNG, at least from what I have seen. I might be missing something on the finer details of what a license does and does not entitle an article to. I was basing this AFD an the sole grounds that there was nothing specifically notable about it, not as much so the references and writing of the article. LethalFlowerTalk/Reply 03:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, however, I don't see anywhere that information is listed; ie if someone were to claim that in an AfD, where would they find that vital piece of information? It seems that that might be something that was discussed at some point, but is not in the actual guideline or any essays. As you see, it's not in WP:NMEDIA. —МандичкаYO 😜 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Let me try this in different words, then: if an article about a duly licensed radio station is properly sourced (which, again, I said right up front that this isn't), then you cannot take it to AFD on the grounds that it would have to pass any higher notability bar beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — we do not separate licensed radio stations into distinct "notable" and "non-notable" classes on any criterion beyond their licensing status. If it's written and sourced this badly, then yes, it can absolutely be nuked and paved as a WP:NOTADVERT violation, with no prejudice and no permanent injunction against the future recreation of a properly sourced new article. (Pirate stations can still be eligible for articles if you can source a substantive claim of notability independent of their licensing status, but they're not automatically eligible to have an article just because they exist — it takes a higher volume of reliable source coverage to get a pirate into Wikipedia than it does for a licensed radio station, but neither class of radio station gets to rest on no reliable sourcing.) Again, this article is not properly sourced, and is fully deletable in this form — we're in complete agreement on that. But if the article were properly sourced, then the fact of having a broadcast license would be the only notability claim it had to make, and it would not have to demonstrate any special level of notability beyond that fact. But for the moment, I'm not sure why we're even having this discussion — even though we both expressed the same opinion on the keepability or deletability of this article, you're quibbling with something I said about how the article might become salvageable, instead of with the position that we share on the actual article that we're actually looking at? Even though, when you get right down to it, we're actually saying the same thing (i.e. reliable sourcing) about how the article might become keepable too — and so you're really just arguing with the wording I'm using to express the same thing you are? Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- "the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article."← This does not make sense so I must not be understanding. The license is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with anything, and it's not a factor in any way, shape or form. It makes no difference toward "eligibility" for an article. If this is any kind of guideline, why is not mentioned in WP:NMEDIA (or anywhere else)? Maybe things have changed since the "old days" because there is no "eligibility" for anything. Any possible thing in the world is "eligible" if it meets GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- You're still misunderstanding (and I'm a longstanding member of WP:WPRS, actually one of the original creators of that project and one of the drafters of WP:NMEDIA, so I'm hardly somebody who needs to be educated on the finer points of a guideline I wrote in the first place.) Nothing I said above discounts the possibility of a pirate radio station also being considered notable — but that takes being able to properly source enough notability, above and beyond the mere fact of its existence, to counter the lack of a license with a "got covered enough to satisfy WP:GNG" claim. For a duly licensed radio station, however, the license itself is all the notability it takes to make the radio station eligible for an article — that article can still be deleted as an advertisement if it's written and sourced this badly, but if the article were properly sourced then the license itself would be all the notability that it takes to make the article keepable. That doesn't negate the necessity of sourcing the article properly — an article can still be deleted if it's this bad, but we just can't deem it permanently ineligible to have a better article recreated in the future. And neither does it discount the possibility of a pirate station also clearing the bar for other reasons independent of its licensing status — pirates can still qualify if there's enough sourcing to demonstrate a cultural influence beyond the mere fact of existing, and just don't get an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat, I know what you're saying and you're not correct - the broadcast license is totally irrelevant to eligibility and irrelevant to anything relating to a Wikipedia article. Have you never heard of Category:Pirate radio stations? —МандичкаYO 😜 17:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect you're misunderstanding my point, if you think it's in conflict with yours. I didn't say that sources didn't have to be there — in fact, I specifically said that they do have to be there. If an article is properly sourced, however, then a radio station does not have to claim any special or unique notability above and beyond the fact of having a broadcast license — the broadcast license is all it takes for the radio station to be eligible to have a properly sourced article written about it, but the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided is still what determines whether we actually keep or delete any particular version of that article. And this isn't properly sourced in the least, which is why I argued to delete — but if a new, better article can be written which does cite proper sourcing, then it would be eligible to keep that version. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Bearcat, what are you talking about? Having a broadcast license is not a qualification in any way. Radio stations must meet regular WP:GNG. See WP:BROADCAST —МандичкаYO 😜 16:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Youtube, Twitter, etc. are not reliable sources. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator and others above. There aren't enough reliable sources to make a page on this. Page has been tagged for a year and a half and nothing has come forward since then. mikeman67 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.