Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitz Radio (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hitz Radio
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable online radio station. Previous AFD discussions many years ago were plagued with new users and sock puppets, no doubt helped along by the young age of the subject. Long story short, it's a small online radio station that used to falsely claim it had millions of listeners. The operator received a minor award, and a couple of national newspapers also published one-off articles by not doing the research. Most other coverage is ridicule on forums like Digital Spy. If we had articles for every person or subject that has had one piece in a newspaper, we'd run out of bandwidth. No real notability and all but forgotten almost a decade later. KaisaL (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * [Very] Weak Keep - Well, to be clear, the first AfD attracted SPAs, but in the second AfD the only two !votes, aside from the nominator,, were keeps and came from experienced users and [the late great] . That doesn't mean it can't be nominated again, of course. More to the point, there look to be enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Article had some linkrot going on, but there were archives available (now in the article). Daily Record, Daily Record, Ayrshire News, Ayrshire Post, Daily Record, The Sunday Times, Daily Mail (HighBeam link)... &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 23:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's very important to look at those links more closely, before claiming that they indicate "significant coverage". They're mostly feel-good, one-off stories about a boy running a radio station, much like you might get about somebody on a morning TV show or in the middle of a magazine. The Ayrshire newspapers are local level, so we can discount those. The others are write-ups on an awards ceremony for young people called "Our Heroes", and again, those happen all over the world. None of this coverage was sustained and none of it was really of the radio station - it was of the founder and mostly the amazement at his alleged success at the age of 15. Some of them barely even mentioned Hitz Radio and none of them lead on it. Local news stories and small "look at this" style stories shouldn't really be an indicator of notability, else we may have an article about every person that found a potato that looks like Jesus or had an operation go wrong. (Not really related, but you get the point - newspapers run pieces on lots of people but it doesn't indicate notability.) Ryan was, undoubtedly, a great self-publicist at that time - which is why the radio forums ridiculed him so much - but I think it's important to be realistic about the radio station's notability. I don't know if this makes you reconsider your weak keep, but I would implore you to at least properly look into the articles, and look at how many of these sorts of pieces run in a daily newspaper. KaisaL (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no need to discount the local papers -- they can still be reliable sources and contribute to notability, but the GNG does indeed require regional/national/international coverage, too. But yeah, it's not great, and I've added a "[Very]" to my weak keep. :) Admittedly, my weak keep is based on the sources above, but also the knowledge that there's more searching that could be done and the opinions of two highly active wikiproject radio members in the last AfD. That's not ideal, I know, but I'd like to monitor the discussion to see what other sources do (or don't) come to light. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries. I feel WP:1EVENT is another valid point here (the event being the non-notable award which led to the coverage) and that wasn't quite so established a guideline back at the time of the previous AFDs. But absolutely monitor, hopefully more will participate from various areas of Wikipedia and not just the radio community. KaisaL (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This subject has sufficient coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. These are not just passing mentions but reasonably in depth about the station itself. This article has survived 2 other AFDs with coverage in 3rd party sources playing a large part in the discussion. I'm not seeing WP:1EVENT as applying here.  The article, and its references cover several years of activities.  While this article wont be featured on the front page anytime soon, it meets guidelines for inclusion. RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I of course understood you would be likely to back keeping the article again, but I'm going to challenge the claim that the sources are "reasonably in depth about the station itself". All but one starts on something like "15-year-old school boy" or a similar phrase; One of them mentions Hitz Radio as "his firm". With the exception of the one about the probe, they're all about Ryan Dunlop, not the radio station, which is bundled in as the reason he is being covered. Here are the openers overviewed in full for each source provided in this debate:
 * 1. Volunteering hero Sonya Stewart has two reasons to celebrate (it goes on to refer to the first anniversary of a kidney transplant and cancer survival); Ryan's mention is as 'Our Business Hero' and it focuses on overviewing his activities;
 * 2. Again, no lead on Hitz Radio or Ryan, another list of the award winners - The relevant part starts on a "fifteen-year-old schoolboy's net radio hit";
 * 3. A school boy who runs his radio station from his shed is broadly the lead;
 * 4. A teenager that convinced Scotland he was the new Richard Branson is being probed by trading standards;
 * 5. Talks of a "schoolboy tycoon" being on the way to being the new Richard Branson;
 * 6. Focuses on Ryan and his business empire and that he can't toast it because he's 15.
 * None of this, I'm afraid, is substantial coverage of the station - it's a series of exaggerated feel-good quotes and non-notable award write-ups that were not prominent in any newspaper, except for the one about trading standards which is about how he had lied about all of the claims in the previous pieces. And, most importantly, Hitz Radio is a supporting point, it's the business of the person that's being covered. Only one really goes into any depth about the radio station, because the interesting bit for the journalists looking for a quick story was his age. Also, the comment about how "its references cover several years of activities" is misleading. All of the sources are from a short space in the middle of 2007 save for an archive of the Hitz Radio website from 2004, which is not a valid source, and a later copy of a page at Companies House. All coverage dissolved very quickly after the 15-year-old school boy interest story was irrelevant, and Hitz Radio has never met any point of WP:BROADCAST.
 * I understand that those passionate about radio topics might feel that a few mentions of a public interest story confers notability, but if anything, the sources support moving the article to Ryan Dunlop because he is the focus of all of them. There's no actual evidence that the radio station itself had substantial coverage beyond forums that mostly teased the claims of millions of listeners and 40 staff. KaisaL (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * comment the above comment seems to me to be more issues with the subject than with the references.  The references, at least the good ones, are largely newspaper articles, they are only going to go so deep on the subject. Both the Sunday Times and Daily Record articles focus solely on the subject of this wikipedia article (not just a trivial mention).  Coverage has also been demonstrated over a sufficient period here.  If you are looking for book length coverage of this topic, you aren't going to find it, but that's not necessary to meet general notability guidelines.  Reiterating a comment from the first AFD, internet radio stations usually aren't notable because there is scant if any coverage in reliable sources, this is one of the few that rises above that. --RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This AFD is turning into an "and another thing" type argument very quickly. The nominator has questioned the validity of national and local newspapers as reliable sources, when that argument met resistance they switched to arguing that the article covered a single event, when that met resistence they switched to questioning the depth of coverage.  While appreciate the nominator's eagerness to defend their position that the article does not belong, things are getting pointy here.  It would be nice have some other editor opinions here as well. Hopefully the lists North America posted the AFD to will generate some interest soon.  RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue is most certainly with the references, and the general non-notability of the subject. I do find it ridiculous that this has had an article for years, yes, but I have no gripe with the subject at all. It's just not notable. (I go into this much detail on quite a few AFDs.) But I am sorry, you are absolutely misleading in your comments. The Daily Record articles do not "focus solely on the subject of this Wikipedia article", have you actually clicked on them? The first one opens with a cancer survivor and dedicates one section to Ryan and is mostly quotes from him and stock quotes from the awards, giving a brief overview of the fact he runs radio stations. The second one from the Daily Record states, "Ryan's firm Hitz Radio has already attracted five million fans", and this is the only time it even mentions the station. I have no issue with disagreement in debate but you are not reflecting the actual content of the sources, which is why I am responding at such length. (And the five million claim was a lie - I would hope you at least accept that. Hitz Radio simply does not meet WP:BROADCAST.) KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, I take serious objection to you attacking my character and accusing me of being "pointy". You yourself seem to have just as much of a strong opinion as me, and I have not changed my views at all, I have argued the same point throughout. I don't know if you know Ryan personally but as established and long-term Wikipedians we should not be fighting it out like this, it's quite embarrassing for both of us. KaisaL (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Obviously as a quite vocal nominator I am biased, but could some people not involved in the topic please make their opinions known in this debate? Whether you support deletion or not, it would be very unfortunate for this to purely be voted on by those heavily invested in radio subjects, rather than those that can view this as a non-notable organisation and failure of WP:BROADCAST. KaisaL (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Without getting into the rest of the dispute above, I'll just take issue with one point: There has been exactly 1 person "heavily interested in radio subjects" commenting on this AfD. More importantly, I don't know why that would count against him/her. In the WikiProjects I do participate in (WP Radio is not one of them), I treat in-project articles at AfD the same (if not harsher) than others, and I don't know why you'd assume otherwise. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's an inherent subject bias if an AFD debate is dominated by those with a vested interest in the area. (That includes me as a journalist that can see how minor the links actually are.) There's a number of regular, balanced AFD contributors and this debate sorely needs them. The last AFD, several years ago, was scarcely participated in and thus kept without being properly scrutinised by this process. (The sources are potentially significant as newspapers but the coverage is not substantial or even primarily about the radio station and the relevance of this under WP:BROADCAST has never been adequately assessed, and we cannot have articles on every person or organisation that has been in a newspaper; This is the crux of any decision to delete or keep.) It would be a very unfortunate failure of process if people just ignore this debate because two people have had such a heated conversation about the issue, I would like to be able to leave it to those neutral parties to decide based on the facts presented. KaisaL (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This comes off as passive aggressive. Perhaps you don't intend to be, but I don't find this to be a helpful or productive line of argumentation.
 * First, there is no "subject bias" because someone is interested in a broad subject. That's a COI accusation or otherwise an assumption of bad faith, and it most definitely does not apply to members of a WikiProject. Argue as much as you want about the substance of the arguments, but leave it at that.
 * Second, I don't know why you're still saying this debate is "dominated by those with a vested interest in the area". You've already implicitly lumped me in with some nonsense WikiProject COI agenda, which was inaccurate. I found this afd because I searched for "nomination" among all open discussions to look at repeat nominations (something I do occasionally as a sometimes "AfD regular", since repeat nominations can be fraught and benefit from additional participation), not because of an interest in the subject. I've never even heard of Hitz Radio, let alone listen to it (or any Internet radio outside of Pandora).
 * The statement purporting to include yourself in that "vested interest" is likewise ridiculous. On one hand you're saying RadioFan and I must have a vested interest which biases us to keep radio-related articles (or somesuch). On the other hand, you have a vested interest because your job makes you know the right answer ("journalist that can see how minor the links actually are"). It's not just a false equivalence; it's a transparent claim to extrawiki authority.
 * Third, saying this discussion "sorely needs" "regular, balanced AfD contributors" implies those who have contributed thus far do not qualify. Actually making that declaration here not only doesn't do anything to attract participants, but it builds a wall of text, which can deter participation (something with which I am now complicit). The only people who are sure to receive the message are those editors whose opinions you're dismissing (hence why I say passive aggressive). Obviously, from my "[very] weak keep" I don't have a strong opinion about this subject, and may wind up switching to a weak delete by the time this is over, so it's weird for me to be typing out this windy "well I never!" response, but I find this kind of politely dismissive ad hominem destructive. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All I want is for people to actually look at the article and the sources properly. I'm going to unfollow this discussion now and not return to it. I consider this to be a stonewall delete and I'm so very frustrated at being told I'm being "pointy" for properly scrutinising the issue and being accused of taking personal issue with the subject (who is presumably in his mid-twenties now and embarrassed by his teenage self, I would imagine, but I wouldn't know). I'm standing by my statement that this discussion needs neutral input but I'm not going to be participating any longer, the whole debate is ridiculous. KaisaL (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2016 (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.