Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot 92 (pirate radio station)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hot 92 (pirate radio station)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: And one that satisfies WP:GNG just from the sources in the article.   RGTraynor  14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - The two sources appear to be local newspaper reports of convictions relating to the station. Such reports are usual for all pirate radio stations after raids or arrests have taken place. If such reports were to be considered valid sources, then we would have to an article on almost all pirate stations in the UK that either exist now, or have existed (probably hundreds, or even thousands). Currently, the sources fail WP:GNG. Rapido (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Quite aside from my skepticism that there are/were hundreds or thousands of pirate stations in the UK (in any event, an irrelevant strawman), my response is "So what?" The GNG doesn't have an opt-out for articles involving arrests or pirate radio stations.  If there are multiple reliable sources discussing the subject, then that's a pass.  There are and it is.  Now if you want to claim that the Birmingham Mail and the Birmingham Post aren't reliable sources, go for it.    RGTraynor  16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are currently about 150 pirate radio stations in the UK. Some Wikipedia research before your apparent scepticism and "So what?" would be appreciated. If we counted all those that ever existed, it would probably total hundreds or thousands (that is my own estimate). I can turn my radio on right now and listen to at least a dozen. But what do we actually learn about the station in these reports apart from that people were prosecuted, equipment was seized, the name "Hot 92" and that it is "infamous"? The 2nd source actually says it's "one of a number of pirate radio stations operating in the city", and most of the article seems to be a general talk about how pirate stations are bad, not specifically Hot 92. In fact the newspaper reports are about the prosecutions, not the station itself. All I can see is an article that fails WP:GNG and WP:N/CA. The home business I run has been briefly mentioned in various publications, so I can now start an article about it as long as I give links to the newspaper articles? Rapido (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two points you raised there. Just because there are articles for somethings and not others does not have any bearing on an article you may wish to create.  If there were 200 pirate stations in Birmingham and 199 did not have an article that does not mean you can't create one for one of them does it?  It also does not mean that the one for the other must be deleted.  If you run a business which has been in a few publications I wouldn't mind hearing about it, only thing is Wikipedia states that articles like that can not be written by yourself.  You would need someone nutral to write an unbiased article with the sources referenced.  Why don't you try that?  I'd love to read it and I certainly would NOT be moaning about getting it deleted either!  --Cexycy (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - my main argument is about having articles for stations which are clearly not notable, no matter whether there are hundreds which are. Perhaps if there were newspaper or magazine articles such as "Insight into Hot 92 - Behind the Scenes of a Pirate Radio Station", then it could be argued to be notable enough to have its own article. But there aren't, so it's not, and I don't think reports of prosecutions (of individual people, albeit involved with the station) count. Rapido (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes you don't THINK they count. Well Wikipedia does not run solely on YOUR opinions does it?  And if reports of arrests, etc in the papers do not make it notable, what really does?  Things can be notable for the wrong reasons you know.  --Cexycy (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's why we have AFD discussion. So that something may be discussed. So that it's not solely my opinion, and not solely your opinion. Already above I have given my opinion of what makes it notable. Rapido (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Yet another assertion of radio station non-notability not backed up by the plain facts in the text of the article.   Edward Vielmetti (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - which of these "plain facts" are you referring to? Is it it was not made clear if this was a name change or The station is best received by [...] strong radio receivers? Rapido (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sources are local. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "The sources are local." And?  It's a local station what do you expect?  --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: The arguments against this article are complete nonsense. This is about a local pirate station so local papers would probably be the best source of such information.  --Cexycy (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable unlicensed temporary illegal broadcast hobby activity. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's been going since 2000 and does not seem to be showing any signs of winding down. I don't think that could be classed as temporary.  --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: By the way, if you checked these sources used for the article, you will see that it is partly responsible for the riots in the Lozells area of Birmingham (I also found an article online which mentions Sting FM as also being responsible, which I'll have to include, - another station of which you are trying to delete their article). Do you really think a respectable paper/magazine/ TV show, etc would want to feature an article on the likes of these people/radio stations?  I'm not condoning their behaviour however wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased and article wise you can not use that as a reaosn not to have an article on them, though it would make a good thing to include.  This is most likely why local sources do not say a great deal about it, unless something bad happens.  --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Therefore, if that's the real reason they are notable, then the information should surely be included in the 2005 Birmingham race riots page instead. Rapido (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Done this as well. However they are a pirate station too, with independant citations so therefore notable in themselves.  --Cexycy (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Just meets the GNG as far as I can see. A bit borderline but I think the sources cited are just this side of adequate for notablity. --A1octopus (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  My vote here mirrors my vote at Articles for deletion/Sting FM.--Milowent (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 10:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly notable. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The content gives just enough background and external references to show that it is notable. Aleksdeg (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (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.