Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Point FM

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. Poor sourcing is a reason to delete if there is clear evidence of diligent searching and sufficient time has passed Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point FM (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, Am finding everything for a Baltimore radio station but nothing on this, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the page, I see its a youth run and not may names that looks familiar to me so. To the general user that will be the same so delete it. Matt294069 is coming 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Once again, the NOM seems unable to use google. There is local media coverage showing that it exists here and here, it is mentioned in this book, it has an OFCOM license. Tagging @Bearcat: for comment. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  ..... I did use Google as I clearly stated "Am finding everything for a Baltimore radio station but nothing on this"- I did find those results but clearly you're unable to understand the fact that mentions aren't good enough and to be totally honest they're worse than the last AFD!, Find better sources or this AFD stays up. –Davey2010^Talk 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I believe this passes WP:BROADCAST based on the claim that the radio station produces much of its own content (see also WP:BCASTOUTCOMES). The state of sourcing in the article needs improvement, but poor sourcing alone isn't a reason to delete. clpo13_(talk) 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well it is a reason to delete?... If there's no evidence of notability then it doesn't really deserve an article, Anyway I know I said this elsewhere but I've nominated tons of these radio stations this November and half have already been deleted so atleast IMHO BROADCAST doesn't mean anything here (If it did then these would've all been kept?), –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 29 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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.