Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Cat 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. X clamation point  06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pirate Cat Radio
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of notability, no sources, created by the subject, but IMO not quite spammy enough to speedy as spam. A previous version of this has already been deleted at Articles for deletion/Pirate Cat Radio, but this is a total rewrite (original text on request if anyone really feels the urge), so G4 doesn't apply. – iride  scent  01:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Credible sources have been added.
 * Comment - some third party sources have been added but the article needs to be wikified, I feel the article should have been given a chance to be expanded by adding tags, I see no history of that.-- S R X  01:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can you please elaborate? What do you mean by wikified and adding tags? Any examples would be appreciated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wikification has happened! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs)


 * Delete. Created by user:Piratecatradio is enough for me. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Instead of making an arbitrary deletion comment, such as the above, read the third party news articles and give feedback in regards to what has to change on the page to keep it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piratecatradio (talk • contribs) 16:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:VANITY is in play.  Secondly, this is a micro station.  Third, it is an article about pseudonyms, and therefore it doesn't represent verifiable facts.  Can someone go look up "Monkey" in the phone book?  Can someone verify that it's his bedroom, and not his big sister's?  Third party reviews are well and good, but without verification, and with this being a vanity article, we have too many deletion guideline violations.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Who is Monkey: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.14.98/slices-9819.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.182.130 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —Dravecky (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and totally rewrite. The current article is a mess of unreferenced claims and some original research borders on being soapboxy due to it's POV but the topic appears to be notable.  There is coverage over a 10 year period in the LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, as well as some smaller weekly publications in LA and the Bay Area.  Being an unlicensed station, this article doesn't enjoy the automatic notability that those with an FCC license get, but it's received enough attention that sufficient references are available to make this article both notable and verifiable after some work.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and re-write to be more encyclopedic. References to reliable third-party sources prove notability but this article needs clean-up, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per Utgard Loki. I would also like to add that I've lived in Los Angeles for fifteen years and have never heard of this particular radio station. Google turns up nothing but MySpace pages and their official website...  Lady   Galaxy  18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Google news turns up nothing recent but if you click on "all dates" in a Google news search you'll find a number of articles from the bay area NBC affiliate, The San Jose Mercury News, The San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times. The article needs to be rewritten with these references in mind.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, a Deletion review of the previous close concluded that further discussion is warranted here.Tikiwont (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak and reluctant delete Keep without prejudice. Notwithstanding the need for rewrite and verification, it seems to be in the nature of such ventures that if they begin to approach the threshold of notability, especially non-local notability, they get stepped on. It has a mention in Pirate radio in North America, and it is hard to justify anything more. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind. I am not going to object to the substantiality of the coverage. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The article has a significant number of significant sources (which focus solely on this topic) that more than meet any reasonable reading of WP:N. I'm really unclear what policy-based reason people have for deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as rewritten I feel the current article demonstrates notability fair enough. RFerreira (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (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.