Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kool FM (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 no consensus. NJA (t/c) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Kool FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable pirate radio station; previous AFD result was delete, has been recreated despite that Rapido (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kool as common branding for oldies stations in the United States; this can be deleted as unsourced and non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the thousands of listeners it attracts would consider it "non-notable". Seanallen (talk) 01:48, 08 January 2010 (GMT)
- Got any ratings numbers to prove "thousands" listen to it? The very nature of a pirate station precludes using any kind of numbers to show any kind of reach, because there will never be a case where a ratings service offers their services to a pirate station. Nate • (chatter) 06:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So even though it is one of the longest running pirate stations in London, perhaps even the world (over 18 years old), it doesn't deserve to have an article where people can learn a bit about it? Like you said, pirate stations by their very nature have no official figures; this should not be held against it. As for it being "unsourced", any of the information contained in the article can be found out by listening to the station. Please let me know what will make this a better article and I will make changes to comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanallen (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just because something non-notable is 18 years old (allegedly: it could be a different station using the same name), doesn't automatically give it the right to have an article here. You admit there are "no official figures", which contradicts your previous statement about the number of listeners. Besides, anything heard on the station is not a valid source. Rapido (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So even though it is one of the longest running pirate stations in London, perhaps even the world (over 18 years old), it doesn't deserve to have an article where people can learn a bit about it? Like you said, pirate stations by their very nature have no official figures; this should not be held against it. As for it being "unsourced", any of the information contained in the article can be found out by listening to the station. Please let me know what will make this a better article and I will make changes to comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanallen (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - 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.