Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tone 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 speedy keep. Ah yes I remember the NMEDIA thing now......., Well as the previous discussion got no where I don't particularly want another long and tiresome debate over NMEDIA so as such closing as Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tone FM

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

Non notable radio station, Found these [1][2] about the station mocking homeless people however other than that there's a few one-bit mentions, Fails ~~RADIO~~ NMEDIA & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any sources to show meets GNG. I am unable to find any specific guidelines indicating criteria for notability at WP:RADIO.— Rod ^talk 18:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RADIO is the WikiProject. The notability criteria for radio stations are spelled out at WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops sorry I thought Radio would've linked back to NMEDIA, I've amended the comment, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 18:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this definitely needs more sourcing than it has before it could be considered a good article, it doesn't need any more sourcing than it has to satisfy WP:NMEDIA: the base criteria that a radio station has to meet to be eligible for a Wikipedia article are that it is verifiable in at least one reliable source as (a) having a license from the appropriate broadcast regulator, and (b) originating at least some of its own programming in its own studios. As long as those conditions are met, a radio station need claim nothing else that would make it a special case above and beyond any other radio station — media outlets are one of those areas where Wikipedia's stated and consensus-established goal is to be as complete as feasibly possible a reference for all verifiable members of their class of topic. (No, we obviously can't be perfect about it — but our goal is to get and stay as close to "all radio stations that meet the criteria, without exception" as we can realistically get.) So this should absolutely be flagged for refimprove, because it does indeed need more referencing than this before it can be considered a good article — but to be keepable, all a radio station actually has to do is show at least one reliable source (which the BBC certainly is) which verifies that the base criteria for notability are met. Obviously we would still prefer more sourcing than is present in the article right now — but to get a radio station over the base inclusion criteria, the only thing we require is that the reliable sourcing isn't sitting at zero. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2017 (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.