Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University Radio Falmer


 * 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 redirect to University of Sussex. Why this was relisted with such a clear consensus?  A  Train talk 20:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

University Radio Falmer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page was created in April 2009 and most of the initial edits were by a single user, Arcmon, who hasn't made any other contributions to Wikipedia either before or after. All but one of the references are now dead links, and a Google news search for "University Radio Falmer" gives only one result, to a reblogged press release. I would suggest that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's threshold for notability ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   FITINDIA   11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to University of Sussex. Nothing to suggest this needs a stand alone article, and nothing to write one with.  G M G  talk   14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. There are a few sources floating around in a Google search, but not enough to require a separate article when University of Sussex is available as a natural place to cover this station and the university's other media. I added a little bit there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as noted. Back in 2009 those links still actually went somewhere. If they're dead there's no content here. Syrthiss (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect It's a shame there are no further sources since the station has been around since 1970s, but since that's the case it isn't notable on its own Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect as noted. It's true that this isn't reliably sourced well enough to stand alone as an independent article topic, but it's verifiable enough to merit a mention in the university's article — which, in fact, is precisely what WP:NMEDIA dictates for student media outlets that cannot be sourced well enough to stand alone. For a station that's been around since the 1970s and used to operate on a conventional broadcast band, I suspect that better sources actually might exist in archived media databases, so no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can dig out enough media coverage from microfilms or whatever to do better than this, but it's not exempted from having to be properly sourced just because I think better sources might exist if nobody can actually show that better sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * After a week, there's not been much progress on the article: a comment on my own talk page, and a handful of predominantly unconstructive edits by sockpuppets (most of which have required reversion) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 ( c ) (m)   19:36, 10 October 2017 (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.