Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay FM Exmouth (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 keep, per WP:BROADCAST ("Radio stations") and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bay FM Exmouth (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)

This article was deleted as a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay FM Exmouth in 2010. Following representations from an editor who appeared to have a conflict of interest, the deleting administrator userfied the article, which was then edited, and the deleting administrator decided that the changes were enough to justify overturning the unambiguous consensus at the deletion discussion. I disagree. The subject is a very minor local "community" radio station, and there is nothing in the article to indicate notability in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Five of the fourteen sources are dead links, and the rest are things such as a news announcement that the radio station had been given a broadcasting license, similar announcements that it had received a license, an announcement that it was moving to new premises, a local news report that the station had asked the local council for some money, and a letter from the Chair of the radio station's Steering Committee to the local newspaper, expressing displeasure with the way that last item was reported. None of these sources could remotely be considered to constitute the sort of substantial coverage that is required to show notability under Wikipedia's standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• :Comment I find it difficult to assess the long and I want to ask a question. How many people are listening this radio? Whether it is possible to evaluate in any way by this parameter? Do popularity ratings of private radio stations? Shad Innet (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it follows a certain logic that more listeners = more notability, the core of what we're really looking for is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources that we can build an article with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How to evaluate the significance of the radio? It seems that there are several criteria - for its price, by the accessories to the governmental organizations or fame, and that is popular among the audience. Do you have any other criteria?Shad Innet (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete the situation does appear to have changed since 2010, as they're no longer restricted-licence anymore and now broadcast regularly. Other than that, I don't see a lot of new notability or coverage vy reliable sources, but I'll happily change my vote if more show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Strictly speaking, as long as a radio station's article is reliably sourced, it doesn't have to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact of existing as a licensed radio station — it doesn't have to be especially well-known beyond its local area (or even all that well known in its own local area), or have any particular size of audience, or anything else that would single it out as any sort of special case among radio stations. All a radio station's article needs to do to get kept is be properly sourced. That said, this absolutely isn't adequately sourced, so I have to go with the delete — but if the article were properly sourced, and thus satisfied WP:GNG, then under WP:NMEDIA it wouldn't have to make any claim of notability more substantial than it already does, so no prejudice against recreation if better sources can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as article contains more than sufficient in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A licensed over-the-air station, verified by reliable sources and some newspaper coverage as well. This is a keep per WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 20 June 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.