Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CKLI-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. Although it looks like a case of WP:RECENT to me, editors are mostly happy to keep this; I'm not giving the new IPs much weight. Fences &amp;  Windows  01:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

CKLI-FM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

another non-notable pirate radio station. It came on the air and was closed a fortnight later Rapido (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - There have been several reliable sources that have been covering this pirate radio station. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  17:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 17:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per emarsee. CKLI's existence was extensively covered by the local and industry media, making it as notable as the other pirate operations (such as Star Ray TV, for example). -- azumanga (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure how one CBC and one CTV report on air qualifies as prolonged or extensive media coverage --- I think you're playing fast and loose with those terms. Many local events receive the same sort of coverage every year in markets all across Canada and the US and yet would not be considered notable enough to be included in Wikipedia.  Also, only a handful of industry blogs commented on this illegal station in Ottawa -- I fail to see how this justifies it being notable as the firing of on-air personalities that are regularly reported by multiple industry blogs also, and yet these are not included on Wikipedia either. I'm not sure how this station has differentiated itself from any other illegal operation that is regularly shutdown by law enforcement.  There was no legal precedent set at all in this case, as the station complied with Industry Canada's cease and desist order. 67.70.129.161 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC). — 67.70.129.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - Pirate radio station broadcasts (especially when forced off the air) are regularly noted by the local newspapers; however that doesn't give the station any encyclopaedic notability. Please see WP:NTEMP, perhaps also WP:N/CA and WP:NOT. Apart from going on the air, going off the air, and the fact of going on and going off being reported by the local paper, how else is CKLI-FM notable? Star Ray TV has been broadcasting for 12 years with a licence at times, and is much more notable, so I cannot see that being any comparison. Rapido (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's earned it's notability - It's been reported on CJOH-TV (CTV Ottawa), CBO-FM (whose signal was being interfered with *by* CKLI-FM), and several other industry watchdog websites. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - this one easily meets WP:N due to the extensive and prolonging media coverage it received. - Ahunt (talk) 11:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pirates are notable if they garner as much media coverage as this one got. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I too vote for keep. First off, there is more to this than meets the eye. Second, reports are it is back on the air. Third, its a pirate radio station that was on the air yes, but unlike others this was i) a Canadian station which IC had not previously dealt with and ii) the station is still arguably on the air via its online streamsAlebowgm (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Firstly, can you explain what "more than meets the eye" regarding this station, it's not obvious. Secondly, sources? Thirdly, i) isn't it Industry Canada's job to deal with pirate radio stations?; ii) well online can't be "on the air", so it's just another internet radio station. We need sources or notability for each of these points. Rapido (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Read this, from page 1. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I still fail to see how a thread on a forum proves that this pirate station is notable for Wikipedia -- there is no distinguishing or extraordinary circumstances that would justify its inclusion on the site. Pirate radio stations regularly startup and get shutdown all over the world, like any illegal undertaking.  There has been no legal precdent set with regards to the station's illegal activities to justify its inclusion.  If the station has received a legitimate license to broadcast, then there would be reason to include it for the sake of completeness.  However, at the moment, once again, it sounds something better suited for WikiNews than Wikipedia. 67.70.129.223 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC). — 67.70.129.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I've never stated that the topic was meant to prove notability. My comment was meant for Rapido's question on "more than meets the eye". I would normally be against having such articles on pirate radio stations that get shut down without mention, but clearly this one is notable. It's been covered by industry blogs, online news sources, local newscasts, national newscasts and more.  єmarsee  •  Speak up!  05:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, more vague allusions to references with nothing concrete to back it up. I did a search online and all I could find was 2 local broadcasts pieces, 2 local news articles, 1 somewhat national article, 1 mention on an industry blog, and a forum thread.  Hardly what I would classify as prolonged or extensive media coverage.  Also hardly what I would classify as justifying inclusion of it in Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. 67.70.129.223 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC). — 67.70.129.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Okay, I see a forum post with members discussing the station. How is that "more than meets the eye"? Please communicate it here, as I'm obviously missing it. There are something like 150 pirate radio stations in the UK, and now and again, you'll see a station get mentioned in the regional TV news or a national paper. And many mentions in web forums and blogs. That doesn't make them notable enough for their own articles! Otherwise, by the same token, we'd need an article for every single event that gets reported by the media. I would've said that this fails WP:BIO1E, however that applies to individuals not events. Altho' a single individual seems to be behind the station. So all I can say is that it fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP unless something more exciting than going on and off the air happens, and it being reported each time. Rapido (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Exactly, rapido. Media coverage does not equal notability for inculsion in Wikipedia.  If that were the case, then I would expect that every dead soldier in Afghanistan would have an article devoted to them on Wikipedia, as they certainly would receive just as much, if not more, media coverage.  Likewise, every single criminal act that got reported by the local/national news would have to be included in Wikipedia too, and I'm fairly confident that Wikipedia doesn't have an article for every single victim, criminal, and act committed since the beginning of time around the world.  Once again, unless this station actually was granted a license, or there was a precedent set as a result of legal proceedings, there is nothing that differentiates this station's story from an other insignificant pirate radio station that's come and gone over the years.  Sorry but it's just not notable, as rapido noted bassed on the above Wikipedia criteria.  Hence, "Delete". 70.51.60.203 (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC) — 70.51.60.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete First off, the call letters that this station is listed under are not even official -- they were made up by the person running this illegal operation. Secondly, pirate radio stations come and go all throughout the world all the time, and thus, including every single one that receives what I would describe as a small amount of media coverage is just unreasonable - I would not call one CBC and one CTV report as prolonged or extensive media coverage -- also a few articles on a handful of blogs online is not a reasonable criteria for justifying the inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, as then you could easily justify the inclusion of hundreds of thousands of inane topics if that were the standard. Furthermore, just because it continues to broadcast online only is not a justification for keeping the article either, as there are many (thousands, if not more) internet only radio stations too that would have to be included in Wikipedia if that were the criteria. Also, Industry Canada has dealt with the station and it is not broadcasting over the air anymore -- handled exactly like all previous cases. If there had been some sort of legal precedent set, then I would be inclined to include it. But at this point, it has not differentiated itself from an other pirate radio station. Once again, if we are including articles on all sorts of illegal activities by the public that are in no way distinguishing, then there would be billions of articles to be added to Wikipedia that would meet the criteria. Lastly, I think an article on this illegal activity would be better suited for WikiNews and not Wikipedia, as I can fairly confidently say that no one will remember about this station in 5 years time, and thus, its notoreity would be nonexistent. 67.70.129.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment -- But what if Saadé does succeed in getting a legal license to broadcast down the road? Also, even though it would become yesterday's news nationally, it may end up being fondly remembered as part of the local Ottawa culture. I know it's no Radio Caroline or Wonderful Radio London, but still an article shouldn't be killed off for what would (or wouldn't) happen in the future. -- azumanga (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - see WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If something fantastic regarding this station were to happen in the future, then the article might be re-created. But as it stands at present, I am still of the opinion that a fortnight's broadcast and minor coverage (along with much unverifiable information, perhaps even mis-information) does not equal the notability required for an article. Rapido (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - azumanga, rapido is correct in asserting WP:BALL in this scenario. There has being nothing notable to happen with regards to this station, and we shouldn't be keeping articles around just for the sake of that one day in the future that something may happen to make it actually notable.  By the logic you're using, we should keep an article on me as part of Wikipedia, just in case somewhere down the road I cure cancer or some other fantastic accomplishment.  Again, I would say that the topic of this radio station would be probably better suited for WikiNews than Wikipedia.  And if somewhere down the road, something notable does happen with regards to this station (like a new legal precedent set or the actual applying/granting of a license), we can always recreate the article, like rapido noted.  But for now, none of the people who voted for "Keep" have actually put forth a valid reason to continue to have this article, as it is no more notable or worthy of an article than last night's hockey game, unlike rapido who has quoted specific rules of Wikipedia as to why we should "Delete" this article. 70.51.61.174 (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC) — 70.51.61.174 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Neither are the call signs of the part 15 stations in the US, and yet Wikipedia has several articles on them. I can name KBXZ off the top of my head. Jayhaed has claimed that his station has a license (B2, WTF?) and is broadcasting in Ottawa again. There's no proof from the CRTC's website of a license, so he just ignored IC at least twice and signed on again, without approval. There's been tons of coverage from the Ottawa media as well as national media. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - However, they are legal broadcasting outfits -- this one is not. It's like comparing apples to oranges -- this kid just picked a callsign out of his head (first, CTOM and then, CKLI).  Also, I did a quick search and outside of an article on the CBC's website which could be classified as national coverage, all coverage has been local (one broadcast piece on CTV Ottawa and one on CBC Ottawa, and an article in the Ottawa Citizen and the Cornwall Free Press) and relatively inconsequential.  Again, I fail to see how this has any more notoriety and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than most of the daily local news events reported in markets all over Canada, the US, and the world.  Sorry, but without providing any sort of concrete reasons as to why this station is notable (vague references to sources is of little use), I'm still inclined to say "Delete". 67.70.129.223 (talk) — 67.70.129.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - I find it kind of fishy that all of the "delete" votes (besides Rapido) have come from IP accounts registered with Bell Canada, and all of them either have this as its only edit, or one or two other articles as edits. Being bold, I smell a case of "ballot box stuffing" here. -- azumanga (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have to agree with the ballot stuffing issue here. Using Geolocate, all of the IPs are from Ottawa and there are pairs of IPs who are located at K1A and another pair of IPs from K1P. Could it be someone who's changing their IP account at work and at home to promote their own interest by deleting this article? єmarsee  •  Speak up!  18:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can only see one delete contribution (the one added 23:05, 26 December 2009), the rest are comments like this. The writing style looks the same, and I had assumed it was the same person without a fixed IP address, even before the "suspicions" above. Perhaps their ISP assigns an IP address to them randomly when they switch on their computer setup. This happens to me when I do not log in, and they may not even be aware of this. Rapido (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notability established by reliable secondary coverage with significant national attention, unusual for such cases e.g. CBC sources, Calgary Sun. Dl2000 (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Although they are pirate right now, they applied for a license right now, and their actions gained significant attention. But I think we should change the article name to "Mix FM Ottawa", not some made-up call signs. tablo (talk) 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm curious to know where you heard they applied for a license, considering it hasn't been reported anywhere -- I wouldn't call the word of a 14 year old kid a reliable source, especially given his penchant for stretching the truth in the past. Also, that Calgary Sun article is just a regurgitation of an Ottawa Sun article. 67.70.30.149 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2009 (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.