Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raidió Fáilte


 * 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 speedy keep. per SK1 - I'm wrapping this up as it's becoming long and tiresome for everyone and myself, I'm closing on the fact sources were provided, As I said below I appreciate it's a community radio station and I appreciate sources aren't gonna be amazing but sources need to be better than just mentions but I know in a few days/weeks time this'll be closed as Keep so I'm wrapping it up now, Meh I guess mentions are better than nothing (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 19:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Raidió Fáilte

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable radio station, Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else, Fails GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete: I can't anything significant other than rado station listings that link to the station. Little WP:RS coverage found even though it has been around for several years. ww2censor (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC) Clear keep AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know whether we are looking up the same station, User:Davey2010 and User:Ww2censor? Here are a number of reliable sources:
 * The Economist
 * Radio Survivor
 * The Atlantic
 * Belfast Telegraph


 * Actually none of those sources you provided make more than a passing mention that the station exists, except for the RadioSurvivor one which is actually based, word for word, on this Ofcom report whose quote was extracted from the radio stations own annual report (see page 11). So I don't see any significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. ww2censor (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ww2censor is bang on - They're all just mentions ... Don't get me wrong I don't expect sources on community stations to be amazing but I do expect them to be a little bit better than just random mentions, As an aside after the recent controversy with The Atlantic I'd rather not use them anyway. – Davey 2010 Talk 11:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Ww2censor That just isn't true. The Belfast Telegraph article is entirely about the station. You said "I can't anything significant other than rado station listings that link to the station" which is evidently wrong. The other articles cover the station in sufficient detail. AusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Davey2010. For a small community station the sources are excellent. The Belfast Telegraph article is entirely about the station. In your nom you say "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else". I believe the nomination is misleading and should be withdrawn on that basis. Regarding The Atlantic how interesting and convenient you have unilaterally decided you'd "rather not used them anyway". Unfortunately that is not how it works. If you believe The Atlantic is not a reliable source in the context of community radio you should take that to WP:RS/N. If the reason you'd "rather not" use the Atlantic is because of their story about the gender gap and misogyny on Wikipedia, a very important story irrespective of minor errors, then you are being rather WP:POINTy and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are much smaller stations than this and they all have better sourcing and so this should too, There's nothing misleading about this nomination and it's not going to be withdrawn not unless you or someone else can provide better sources than those provided, I stated "as an aide" and there's a big difference between "I'd rather not use them" and "They're not being used end of" (What I'm trying to say is I don't think they should be used but I'd obviously not stop anyone from adding it) .... You do realize nitpicking at everything here won't achieve your desired outcome .... As I said unless someone comes up with better sources than I'm afraid this AFD's heading one way. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is acceptable in my view. Do you have any reason at all you feel The Atlantic cannot be used? I think what is misleading is that you stated in the nom that "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else". How could this be true? AusLondonder (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, you disagree, so let's be precise.The Atlantic while generally a good source, all this link says about the radio station is: Belfast's eclectic indie Raidio Failte have been broadcasting entirely in Irish for several years. So, all its says is that the station exists. I've already commented on why the Radio Survivor is not a good source in this instance. The Belfast Telegraph only says they were going to interview Ian Paisley, while The Economist states the station broadcasts over the internet and that some protestants listen to it. The WP:POINT is that there is no significant coverage to be seen. Provide some and I'll be happy to change me opinion because I never suggested that WP:IDONTLIKEIT,. Surely you can do better then that? ww2censor (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — foxj 17:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Yet another AfD about a community radio station. Once again: British regulator OFCOM gives out very few broadcast licenses, so on its own that should make the stations notable. And the same editor always starts the discussion with exactly the same line, and in the majority of cases it is not accurate. The fact is that these stations are extremely local and have a local audience, so there is no need for them to have notability outside of the area where they broadcast. So local media coverage should be more than sufficient to show notability. Has a OFCOM license, is mentioned in the local media as being a local radio station - should mean that it is notable. If it has a mention in The Atlantic, this should be more than sufficient. Keep. JMWt (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah as we've discussed a million and one times no one gives a flying toss about Ofcom - It doesn't prove notability despite what you or the essay (which isn't policy!) states, Mentions as you've been repeatedly told aren't good enough either, As I've said I'm more than happy to withdraw these AFDs if one can prove it's an actual notable station... – Davey 2010 Talk 18:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it is pretty clear that it is virtually impossible to "prove" to you a station is notable when you reject coverage in the international press. AusLondonder (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article of its own.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've began to remove redlinked/deleted articles on the table, As it stands the table is useless information wise (There's not much info on the table so redirecting IMHO is pointless and seeing as half of my nominated radio stations have been deleted it makes sense to just delete the lot instead of deleting 98% and perhaps redirecting 2% of the stations :), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

. what Bearcat said. I hope all AfDs for currently broadcasting British community radio stations are rejected - as they all meet this standard. JMWt (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment One question I have: Why did User:Davey2010 state "Can't find anything at all on Google or anywhere else" when I, with one Google search, found The Economist, The Atlantic and the Belfast Telegraph? AusLondonder (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as a radio station can be reliably sourced as existing, rather than relying exclusively on its own self-published web presence for verification, then per WP:NMEDIA the station does not need to make any further claim of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station. The volume of sourcing does not need to be spectacular — the station's existence just needs to be properly verifiable in at least one or two sources independent of its own self-published web presence. The volume of sourcing demanded by the nominator is in fact impossible for somewhere between 95 and 99 per cent of all media outlets to ever actually meet — because most of our sources for Wikipedia content are media outlets, the nominator's impossibly high sourcing expectations would put the notability of nearly all media outlets on a direct collision course with those same references' reluctance to offer the same volume of neutral and in-depth coverage to their own competition that we would demand in, say, a WP:BLP of a person. So the nominator does not get to dismiss Ofcom as irrelevant — the existence of a license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC in the US, CRTC in Canada, Ofcom in the UK, etc.) is the main notability standard that a radio station has to meet. And the Ofcom license is in and of itself a legitimate source, to boot — it is, for example, the only possible source for many important technical details, such as a station's ERP and HAAT statistics, that are required details in a radio station's article. Accordingly, once its existence as an Ofcom-licensed radio station can be properly verified in reliable sources separately from the station's own webpage, a radio station needs to make no further claim of notability beyond that fact. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Restoring comment removed by Davey2010) AusLondonder (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC) It's extraordinary someone would devote so much time to trying to gut coverage of community radio rather than improving anything. AusLondonder (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah sorry I hadn't removed your comment so not sure what happened there (I'm assuming edit conflict?), I appreciate it's a community radio station and I appreciate sources aren't going to be amazing but all community stations I've come across have somewhat better sources (even the unknown ones) which is why they're not here, I would rather withdraw but all articles here need better sources, – Davey 2010 Talk 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bearcat - I don't expect sourcing to be amazing but they need to be somewhat better than just mentions, Ofcom doesn't prove notability and NMEDIA's not a policy, It's like saying articles on companies should be kept because they're registered on the UK Companies House register ....., As I said all sources above are just mentions and being registered with Ofcom isn't a pass to an article. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * JMWt - They meet no standard whatsoever. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This was the edit that removed it, I realise it was most likely a mistake. I haven't commented on some of the other AFD's because I recognise they aren't notable but feel this one is. AusLondonder (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2015 (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.