Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/90.0 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   no consensus. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

90.0 FM

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable radio frequency/station SageGreenRider (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 03:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * keep as part of a notable list/series of articles, quick google shows other stations at this frequency, too. Deunanknute (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep as other frequencies are included in a list of frequencies. Many stations worldwide use this frequency.Stereorock (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 10:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - a valid list, just needs expansion. I pick up BBC Radio 2 on 90.0Mhz from the Sandgate, Kent carrier and have sourced this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable frequency. Wikipedia is not a directory, and certainly list of everything that exists, even if articles exist about other nonnotable frequencies. This is as pointless and unencyclopedic as a list of elevations with every place located at that elevation, or every fractional degree of latitude and longitude with cities which happen to be located there, or heights and names of persons of that height. It just seems like a poor excuse to create a mass of articles. Edison (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * comment - This page also acts as a disambiguation page of sorts. Deunanknute (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion I concede that I hadn't thought of 's insight. Is there any automatic, scripted way of converting this family of "articles" into disambiguation pages? People do refer to radio stations colloquially by the frequency they (locally) occupy rather than their full names. In any case, we need a consistent solution. Keep all. Delete all. Repurpose all. Moving from the status quo is going to be a big job but as and I agree, these are not encyclopedic as they are. SageGreenRider (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment List articles tend to polarise opinion, but I think FM frequencies used by radio (selected bands from 88 to 108MHz) are more notable than has been suggested. In the UK, it is illegal to broadcast anything on these frequency ranges without an appropriate licence, which costs something in the region of £8,000 a year and requires you to adhere to a strict code of conduct - every now and again famous British DJs hit the news because they got fined, suspended or even sacked for either swearing, making personal attacks, or making comments to incite intolerance. Example - The Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I tend to assume any FM station is notable provided a reliable source can confirm its existence. Plus some frequencies, such as BBC Radio 2's frequently used "88 - 91 FM" tagline, do achieve national attention. As for whether a list of them by frequency is a good idea, who knows? Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  09:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Example of conversion to disambiguation page I boldly (and manually) modified one of this article's sister articles, 89.2 FM to make it into a disambig page, so you can all see what it would look like. We'd need a script to top each existing one with  (newline) Thetitle may refer to: and tail them with   . There are too many of them to do by hand. (  reverted it so I'm now linking to my reverted revision instead ) SageGreenRider (talk) 13:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per OUTCOMES above - Personally I think it needs improving not deleting. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I also closed as Keep as only half the discussion had appeared, Wasn't till I closed it the bottom half had shown hence reopening it, Oh and I listed it under Christianity - Oh what a fun day it is today! . – Davey 2010 Talk 14:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment (Sorry about the edit collison) Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media isn't pertinent here because the "article" (such as it is) isn't about a radio station: it's about a frequency that one or more radio stations may or may not broadcast on. A best, it's a disambig page, not an article IMHO. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh god sorry I was meant to have added your additions back my apologies there, Ah nope you're right O#BM is completely unrelated so have amended, Thanks (and sorry again for earlier - What a disaster eh ). – Davey 2010 Talk 15:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree it's more of a disambiguation page than an article in its own right, but as long as it's serving that purpose, it's useful to have it (and its various stablemates) stick around here. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  17:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is pure directory info. Neutralitytalk 02:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.