Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branch 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 keep. Well I'm closing this myself - I had hoped someone would close it for me but doesn't look like that's gonna happen so screw it - Sources have been provided which I'm happy with so I'm wrapping this up. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 05:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Branch FM

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

~~Non notable radio station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that it has an OFCOM license is enough to prove notability. There is (admittedly pretty thin) information I can find about it from OFCOM, other media, the charities regulator etc. I suggest reducing the page to stub with the bare minimum information that can be referenced from these non-primary sources. JMWt (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs other than a link to their license. Szzuk (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already agreed the refs are rubbish, but other refs exist. Lack of refs does not mean that the page is not worth keeping in-and-of-itself. JMWt (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See you've just admitted there's next to none information on it, Most if not all articles here need sources - If no one can find anything then it's a non notable article and should be deleted, Had this been created yesterday It would fall under A7 (to be honest all what I've nominated would), If you can actually find something then great but if not it doesn't deserve an article. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the procedure for improving sources is a refimprove hatnote, not deleting the page. There is more than nothing, if you'll be kind enough to wait until I have time to edit the page properly, I will show you.JMWt (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is tho is that adding the refimprove does nothing - There's been a few articles where the refimprove's been there since like 2006/2007, Ofcourse I can - Believe it or not I'd rather these get saved than deleted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we have already established that having an OFCOM broadcast license establishes notability according to WP:NMEDIA. This might mean that it is only possible to say that the station exists and has various commitments it has to meet to broadcast in the UK. But that is enough to mean that the page should not be deleted. Anyway, I have included several new references including media and a published research paper. Have a look now. JMWt (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An ofcom license doesn't convery notability at all. If you read Nmedia it says community radio stations of this kind are generally not notable and have to pass wp:corp. Doing that requires quality references which you don't have. The refs you have added say the radio station has a license and some listeners and definitely doesn't pass wp:corp. Szzuk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same section? WP:BROADCAST implies very strongly that licensed (rather than unlicensed) media is notable, and that the "primary criterion of having received independent media coverage." Furthermore the top of that section says that the station should also be judged on the "uniqueness of programming". This station has been reported in independent media, has a broadcast license and according to the regulator has unique programming. There is nothing to answer on any of those points. I cannot see anywhere in WP:NMEDIA anything which can be read to suggest that "community radio stations of this kind are generally not notable". In fact the only section which bares any resemblance to that suggestion is the one which states that Travelers' Information Stations are not notable and "might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover." That is clearly not the situation for this station. None of the other sections seem to me to be relevant. JMWt (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Broadcast (radio) says this "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." So there are 3 questions to ask...does the station have a large audience? Answer no. Does the station have an established broadcast history? Answer no. Does the station have unique programming? Answer No. Unique programming doesn't include volunteer DJ's talking about community issues because it isn't unique - it is mundane. (I'm not going into policy guidelines on wp:corp) Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

of course, it can be both unique and mundane. In fact, the line you've highlighted above has the important word either. Mundane volunteer DJs talking about community issues are by definition producing unique programming. JMWt (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The community radio chat is just like you'll hear in a coffee shop or garden centre cafe opposite the radio station - it isn't unique. Szzuk (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. "Successful seven years for radio". Dewsbury Reporter. 2014-11-16. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  
  On Saturday November 8, local radio station Branch FM celebrated their seventh anniversary after obtaining a Community Radio License in 2007.
  The station spent the morning broadcasting live in Dewsbury and provided an open invitation to the public with visits to the studios and refreshments.
  Branch FM is a Christian radio station founded by members of Dewsbury Gospel Church. They have approximately 30 annual volunteers, aging from 15 to 65.
2. "New gospel radio station to hit the airwaves". The Yorkshire Post. 2006-03-20. Archived from the original on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Branch FM thinks there is an unmet market for Christian broadcasting and has been given a licence to try its theories in the Dewsbury area.
  Like the Branch Bookshop and the Branch Christian School, the radio station is an offshoot of Dewsbury Gospel Church, which traces its roots back to the temperance movement. There is no single organisation of "gospel churches" but like most with a similar title, Dewsbury's characterises itself as "charismatic and evangelical" – meaning more American than Church of England in style.
  And it believes it was sent a "Vision from the Lord" to get into American-style religious broadcasting.
  Its prayers were answered yesterday when the Government's Office of Communications (Ofcom) announced it had been awarded one of the new Community Radio licences.
  The article also notes that Branch FM had been broadcasting on the Internet:
  Within nine months, Branch FM expects to be on air 24 hours a day from the studio above its church in the old Temperance Hall on Halifax Road, Dewsbury.
  It already broadcasts over the internet and claims up to 5,000 "hits" a week, from all over the world, although it cannot say how many visitors tune in. So-called "webcasting" only gets listeners who are good with computers. The new licence is for a wavelength – still to be chosen – in the spectrum most ordinary radios are tuned to.
3. Cooper, Martin; Macaulay, Kirsty (2015). "Contemporary Christian radio in Britain: A new genre on the national dial". International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-11-19. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Branch FM is a Christian community radio station in the Dewsbury area.
  ...
  In a similar manner, Branch FM takes the position that, ‘If the community is involved, that includes non-Christian organisations, as long as they are doing good, then obviously we will support that whole-heartedly’ (Hodgson 2013).
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Branch FM to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media notes:
Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)
Since this is a licensed radio station and has received the significant coverage necessary to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, this article should be kept.
Cunard (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment - and again unfortunately I can't withdraw so could an admin do the honours please?, I'll add sources later, (Thanks Cunard!). –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your position after reviewing the sources, Davey2010 (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 05:19, 21 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.