Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sting 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. That the station exists is not evidence of it meeting notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sting FM

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This IS a station in Birmingham UK. As the article states it is only for Birmingham, UK. It does not broadcats online and it has limited range, even people in Birmingham can have difficulty is receiving it. Therefore there will be many people who have not heard of it. However there is a link to support the information contained which proves the article contains valid facts and therefore should not be deleted. --Cexycy (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you explain Sting FM's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N? The link appears to be dead. Rapido (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I have updated the article to link to its current URL. As I have said with other pirate radio stations, how can I prove they exist? Have you ever read up on numbers stations? They don't officially exist yet there are articles on them. This is because all pirate or numbers stations don't "officially" exist but really they do, if you get what I mean. If you read the URL now, this should help support the article and I hope you understand my point on keeping the article and a few others which you have already queried. --Cexycy (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to cross verifiability and notability thresholds due to lack of independent reliable sources. That a website exists for this admittedly criminal activity does nothing to prove that there is an actual pirate station nor that it has any notability outside the heads of its involved persons. WP has plenty of articles on notable pirate radio stations but, based on the lack of third-party coverage, this one does not make the grade. - Dravecky (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I have said before this station does exist and I think it is very notable that an unlicenced radio station has been broadcasting for over 10 years and not suffered any legal action, despite broadcasting 24 hours a day. Most pirate stations need to shut down so they can move the equipment to another place to stop the police tracing them. I have already asked, how am I supposed to prove this exists, unless you visit Birmingham, UK with a radio and tune in to 107.5 FM? I can say that I live in Birmingham and this is how I know about it. I also knwo the signal is quite week, hence this mention in the article. I also said the numbers stations and other Pirates dont officially exist however there are articles on them. What makes this article so special it has to be deleted? I have done a few google searches and there are minimal mentions elsewhere. Unless you can prove this station does not exist it would be unfair to delete the article. --Cexycy (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unless you can prove this station does not exist it would be unfair to delete the article." Not true. It it doesn't meet WP:N, the article should be deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said before go to Birmingham, it is there and has been for over 10 years! How much more notable can you get? --Cexycy (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't show notability per WP:N! Joe Chill (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why don't you state which PART of WP:N you are talking about instead of just quoting article titles! All you ever seem to do is that, whereas I have actually quoted sections in the past haven't I? Maybe not so much here but in one or two of other arguments you have raised with me. --Cexycy (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Significant coverage in reliable sources! When you quoted WP:MUSIC, you didn't use its correct meaning. I didn't think someone would have so much trouble understanding WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Since you have such a problem reading straightforward guidelines, here is a quote: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." You'll probably twist that around also. Joe Chill (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've now added two references to the article, which are not local (even though there is nothing wrong with local sources anyway). They are unbiased to myself, Wikipedia or Sting FM themselves. This should prove that the article is notable and should be kept. Same goes for Hot 92 now. --Cexycy (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I do see sufficient sources to verify the existence of this station. Is there any notability guide for pirate stations? I know in the U.S., any FCC licensed station seems to be deemed notable. In britian, though, i understand there are many pirate stations of varying importance.--Milowent (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes there are many pirate stations, however this has more to do with the fact our government has neither the enforcement capability, nor the penalties to deal with such activity, rather than any question of "importance" (unless you count re-broadcasting a rumour as important). Rapido (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is evidence it exits and the time they have been on air makes them notable. It's lightweight and would benefit from more content but isn't just a puff piece - so it merits entry. 80.177.5.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I've looked at all the sources, including those added by Cexycy, and none of them contain really significant coverage about the station itself. They're mostly about the rape incident, with the station mentioned almost in passing as one of the venues (and not even the first) on which it was spread. I therefore don't think they confer notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Olaf Davis, we require non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Extra emphasis on the non-trivial part in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It bears mentioning that a sister AfD to this one resulted in a keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot 92 (pirate radio station).--Milowent (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not really a "sister AFD", I just happened to nominate this one three days apart from the other one. Just because the other one resulted in a keep has no bearing on this AFD. Rapido (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The outcomes of similar AfDs should always have bearing. By "sister AfD" i was referring to the fact that both were involved in that one rumour event.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Even if we accept the notion that outcomes of similar AfDs should have bearing it needs to be established that they are similar. Reading the two they do not seem very similar to me: the evidence of notability in that case was vastly better than in this one. Every case needs to be considered on its own merits. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the exception of the post where Cexycy says "I've now added two references to the article..." all of the arguments for "keep" are based on reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies, such as "it really does exist", and so have no relevance. As for the references, I have read them all, including the two that Cexycy added. One of the references given (this one) does not even mention Sting FM. The only relevance of this source is that it gives one quote from a person who it states is a DJ on Sting FM: giving a quote does not constitute substantial coverage even of the person who made it, let alone substantial coverage of the radio station. Other sources give a little more mention, but only to report that Sting FM reported a particular news event: this is minimal coverage of Sting FM. There is no conceivable way that this can be considered as adding up to notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2010 (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.