Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Jackie North (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   delete. notability requires actual reliable sourcing and since these are evidently absent the delete arguments are the more policy based Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

fails WP:N. Radio stations with licenses are normally considered notable by default, but pirate stations are not. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a licensed broadcast station, and lacks independent and reliable sources to show notability. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Radio stations with licenses are normally considered notable by default, but pirate stations are not. "
 * There is no difference in notability between licensed and pirate radio stations. All there is is an assumption that licensed stations have at least one implied WP:RS to support their claim of notability. A pirate station that is otherwise notable (i.e. it is discussed in sources, according to the usual WP policies) is still notable, despite being unlicensed. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no. General consensus is that licensed radio stations should be considered notable by default, assuming they're not pokey local things. Note that my statement did not say that Pirate Radio stations are never notable, simply that they are not considered notable by default. Your edit summary, "Nom's assertion that pirate stations are not notable is not supported by policy" is correct, but then nothing notability-related is policy-based. Have a read of Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, particularly "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you applying the US situation (where pirate radio wasn't the political issue it was in the UK) to a UK station? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The rules apply worldwide - a US example is given because, realistically, the US is where the majority of notability problems will be based. Note that it's "common deletion outcomes" - most UK stations face a similar situation, or the rule would be different. Wikipedia does not work on "political issues", wikipedia works on notability. Both US and UK based items must be notable, and this station is not. Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The "rules" are only that we cover notable content, don't cover non-notable content. There's no "rule" that a UK pirate station must meet US part #15 rules or must have an allocated Canadian callsign! Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Although there are any number of trivial non-notable pirate stations, both Radio Jackie North and Merseyland Alternative Radio were significant and highly notable long-term features of the UK pirate radio scene in the 1980s. Their notability is supported by numerous web coverage fan sites (WP doesn't like fansites, but there's a lot more WP content that relies on them for sourcing) and also by printed coverage through anything covering the UK pirates in that decade, "Soundwaves" being the general magazine of record for scene, but they're also mentioned through the general music press, such as NME.
 * Please also see the previous AfD 1, Radio Jackie North where this article was AfD'ed on the grounds of the station being, "from long ago"! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Previous AfDs have no impact on how we work. If something was deleted with a poor rationale previously, how does that undermine or impact on our rationale? We do not like fansites, no, but if they have been covered in significant detail by multiple, reliable, third-party sources then I welcome the inclusion of the article. So far, however, I've seen none of that coverage. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Referencing previous AfDs saves a lot of re-typing.
 * It's also prejudicial of you to claim that the previous AfD was wrong (we work by consensus here, even if you don't like the outcome). For one editor to re-nominate an article does not invalidate a previous consensus AfD! If you really do claim that this past AfD was "poor", then you should take it to DRV, not just re-nominate until the fruit machine comes up with the jackpot.
 * As to the refs, then they've been added repeatedly and then removed as "unacceptable" (mostly hosting snobbery) at a rate that seems unusually high for WP when it involves US editors and UK pirate stations. A moment's web searching will show you plenty of coverage. Be snobbish about these nasty fan sites and their lurid colour schemes, but it's ridiculous to claim the station's non-existence on that alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I've never claimed previous consensus was wrong.
 * 2) Previous consensus was delete. My view is delete. I don't know why you think I'm questioning previous consensus. I'd throw your own comment back at you - we work by consensus here, even if you don't like the outcome.
 * 3) Previous consensus was for a different article. AfD results do not apply unless this article is substantially the same as the one they discussed deleting.
 * 4) The edit history shows no removal of refs.
 * 5) Where exactly are you getting your argument from? It seems to be illogical, founded on no actions and essentially bullshit. No refs have been removed, at no point have I claimed previous consensus is invalid and at no point have I been "prejudicial". Ironholds (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that you're not seeing the full edit history (maybe you're an admin, when I think you would then be able to). This article was speedy deleted a couple of days ago as a copyvio (which seems like an over-reaction, when the older article before any copyvio could have been reverted to) at which time it had been rather larger. It's also bizarre that we can seemingly claim the article is a copyvio of content from elsewhere, whilst at the same time denying that there is any content elsewhere as a source!
 * Just web search a bit for Radio Jackie North - it (and Eric Haydock) were significant players in the 1980s "second wave" UK pirate radio scene. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the history as it pertains to this creation; for obvious reasons, I can't see previous history as I'm not an admin. it seems reasonable to say that; unreliable sources can still be copyrighted. Can you explain, please, how I was prejudiced against the previous AfD, claimed it didn't apply, disagreed with the consensus formed there and attempted to invalidate it by nominating the (new) article for deletion? Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And now you're stalking my contributions today and undoing them, classy... Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - I can find no reliable sources covering this in any sort of detail. This book lists the station but does not appear to actual provide any detailed coverage about it.  Web searchers turns up lots of forums but these aren't reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 17 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.