Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic 1170


 * 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. Chaser - T 10:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Magic 1170

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Blatant advertisement Shoessss 15:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep doesn't look at all like an ad to me. M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 17:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While I agree with M1ss1ontomars2k4 that it doesn't look like an ad, it does not make any claim of notability and should be deleted for that reason. (also the article could use a bit of a rewrite if it isn't deleted) Monty845 18:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment We should perhaps evaluate its notability in the context of its parent company, as well as the other stations in its network, which all also seem to have articles. It should also be noted that the company is part of this template.  JavaTenor 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to say I still say DELETE. This is not to be taken as a negative to the company or the individual writing the article.  However, there is a misconception that Wikipedia can and should be used as a directory (or as we call it State side: Yellow Pages) or a listing of companies.  Sometimes we forget that the Wikipedia project is supposedly an encyclopedia providing a research tool for individuals to explore “Note” worthy items that are not widely known outside there small area or are widely known, but the individual would like additional information.  All-in-all, I believe the article will be deleted.  However, as I stated earlier, please do not take this as a derogatory statement to you as the author or the company you are writing about.  It is just a state of affairs that I believe is not a good fit for Wikipedia at this time.unsigned comment was added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * While the parent company may be notable, for the station to warrant an article of its own it must be notable on its own. Monty845 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, which is why mine was a Comment rather than a Keep. I don't know a lot about UK radio, but I'd be curious to discover whether any or all of the Magic Radio stations should be considered notable. JavaTenor 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Reads fine to me; could use some references though (I wonder why people always say Wikipedia is unreliable :-]) P.B. Pilhet  21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The case for notability would be helped if audience stats are included. --Aarktica 22:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Relevant in the context of parent company and sister broadcasts. Notability should also be improved as above. Mystache 23:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In general, perhaps most networked radio stations could be merged into the parent articles. The sections could still be linked from the geographically-organized templates. DGG' 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:A, no references whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a professional station with an Ofcom license. Notability is plainly established. The article has no inline references, but there are external links, which are good enough for a young article to prove notability. The JPS talk to me  12:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep it isnt an ad. The station has an interesting history and is reffered to in other links. Obviously Im new to Wiki and am liable to learn through my mistakes, i will attempt to improve the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Video killed the radiostar (talk • contribs).
 * merge into article on all Magic stations — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But, all of the individual Magic stations have had a past in which most have had several different names. It would be unfair to merge them all into one. Video killed the radiostar 14:44, 18 April 2007 (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.