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. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to be found. --neon whitetalk 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked your print copies of Soundwaves? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you are referring to but currently the article has no assertions of notability. --neon whitetalk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites three websites and one printed reference that verify the existence of the station. Now I'm sure the wording can be improved in places, but a list of relevant links labelled "references" is generally agreed on Wikipedia to be an indication of supporting evidence for verifiability. Do you dispute the existence of these stations, the notability of individual stations within the world of pirate radio, or do you object to pirate radio as a topic in general? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the article has is a few links to self published and highly unreliable sources that are not evidence of notability. If this station has not had significant second or third party coverage in verifiable sources, it isnt notable. --neon whitetalk 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, check your back-copies of Soundwaves. An independent printed magazine of the period that makes many references to these particular stations. There are technical (copyright) problems in distributing this material further through WP, but it has been verified by at least one editor. Verification in the future isn't easy from so few sites, but nor is it impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid arguement. --neon whitetalk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an argument at all, it's an attempt to organise what is clearly a related discussion into one place, to the benefit of all interested parties. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see the value in focusing on the editors who raised the AFD. Can you expand on your desire to keep this article? Is it based on the article or the editor that raised teh AFD?
These aren't self-published sources, they're fansites. They don't have the solid reputation of Nature, but neither do they raise the CoI concerns that underly WP:SPSAndy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do think you sincerely believe the station is notable, as with the rest above in today's AfD. I take your point about SPS and WP:COI. I would however point out that I did also say "personal websites", which these fansites are. Unfortunately these do not satisfy WP:RS. We need better sources than these. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where does WP:RS express a problem with "personal websites", as you term them? "Self-published", as per WP:RS, is not the same thing at all. AFAIK, none of these are self-published sites. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The policies say similar things. WP:V#Sources states: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this pirate radio station is notable. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. There is mention of fanzine but insufficient information about that source to verify it. There have been a lot of publications called Soundwaves, we'll need more that the title to verify this. Doesn't appear to be a hoax, but it also doesn't appear to be notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (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.