Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool Pirate Radio


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Liverpool Pirate Radio

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another non-notable radio station. Fails WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So a magistrate's court isn't a WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, since magistrates are a bunch of unqualified, brainless hicks. But even if it was, a court report is not evidence of notability, and even if that was, there is no such coverage. Not in the article, not found by google. If you insist on claiming that there is such coverage, provide it. Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "unqualified, brainless hick" nature of magistrates is hardly a relevant issue to WP policy. We care about the recording of objective sources, and you can hardly question them to that level! I fail to see how you can claim a court report doesn't provide a reliable source, as we see them.
 * It might surprise you that whilst I wouldn't call for this particular article's deletion, I wouldn't strongly support it either. As mentioned on the other AfD, Radio Jackie North and Merseyland Alternative Radio (and their key personnel) were significant Liverpool pirate stations in the development of the overall scene, Liverpool Pirate Radio (and many others) wasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A court report is not a reliable source for determining the notability of the station. If I get arrested for theft, charged at the magistrates court and sentenced at the Crown Court, I (by your definition) can pass WP:N. In addition, I'm yet to see any coverage of these stations by reliable, third-party sources whatever you claim, so however "significant" they are, that obviously isn't enough. Ironholds (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A magistrate's court record is a primary source and certainly in no way satisfies notability requirements of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. We look for coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. There is a newspaper article, but it shows nothing more significant than a hobby operation. The newspaper article just says he broadcast for 3 weeks before he was busted and fined. Edison (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, a court report is a reliable report of sorts, but it's a long way from the multiple non-trivial coverage that's expected on most Wikipedia articles. I'd rather we didn't have a system where every petty offender is rewarded with a Wikipedia article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:34, 15 September 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.