Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWSE (2nd nomination)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DWSE (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)

• Delete. Radio station without significant coverage. References added are not enough to have its own article; one of which is a circular reference. Renomimating the article due to lack of consensus in the previous discussion. Sixth of March 05:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• May I invite the original nominator JDDJS as well as interested editors Bearcat and Davey2010 to this discussion? Sixth of March 06:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted in the original discussion, while we do accept licensing as a valid claim of notability for a radio station if the article is sourced properly, it is not a claim of notability that entitles a radio station to an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. No claim of notability on Wikipedia, in fact, can ever be passed just by asserting that it's been passed — it's not the mere statement of claim that makes the difference between a keep or a delete, but the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim.
  But virtually all of the sources here are unreliable for one reason or another — for instance, a radio station's profile page on TuneIn Radio or RadioStationWorld does not confer notability in and of itself, nor does some random non-notable person's collection of travel photos on their own self-published website on Tripod.com, nor its simple inclusion in a business directory. And the one source that's marginally better than any of the others, #3, still fails to contain any publication details by which we can verify the accuracy of its information (its publisher could have just collated their information from us, for all we know.) These are not the kind of sources it takes to pass Wikipedia's sourcing rules.
  Delete, unless somebody can start ponying up some reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2016 (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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.