Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bounce Radio

Add links
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 redirect to Bell Media Radio. Even if we were to take into consideration the comments from the block-evading IP-sockpuppeteer, they would carry little weight, for the reasons given by Bearcat, and the fact that they were made while evading a block makes carry no weight at all. Apart from those comments, there is clearly a consensus against keeping the article, and the commonest opinion is redirecting to Bell Media Radio. JBW (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bounce Radio[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Bounce Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP- this internal grouping of brands is not independently notable of both the parent company Bell Media Radio and the individual stations. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bell Media Radio. Strictly speaking, a networked brand identity doesn't have to clear WP:NCORP independently of whether its parent company clears NCORP, because it isn't a separate company in its own right — but it does need to pass WP:GNG on some evidence of coverage about the cultural and commercial impact of the brand, and just finding two same-day reprints of Bell's own self-published press release announcing the branding change isn't enough in and of itself. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if more independent analytical coverage can be found, but this isn't enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have recently found another source regarding this topic and added more information to the article with references to that sources to back up the info. Hence, there is just enough evidence to support this topic and the article should be notable enough to meet WP:NCORP and not be deleted or redirected. 199.119.235.145 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC) - block-evading editor's comment struck out - JBW [reply]
Notability is not a question of finding evidence that the topic exists — it's a question of finding evidence that the topic has been the subject of journalism in real media outlets that analyzes and contextualizes its significance. So no, the one new source you added isn't a magic bullet. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added to the article more information and sources from reliable outlets so this should be enough to show that the topic is significant in and of itself. 208.98.223.84 (talk) - block-evading editor's comment struck out - JBW
No, you haven't. You've added (a) another press release from Bell Media itself which is not support for notability, (b) an unreliable and non-notable blog which is not support for notability, and (c) a short and unsubstantive blurb in a community pennysaver about the rebranding of the local outlets in its own local coverage area, offering nothing in the way of coverage or analysis of the actual overall national brand. Again, we're not looking for mere verification that this exists, we're looking for substantive third-party analysis of its significance in sources independent of itself, so self-published press releases from its own corporate parent and mid-market community hyperlocals and blogs do not cut it. Bearcat (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that majority of edits from the two IP editors above are relating to radio stations belonging to the Bell Media Radio company. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article now has enough information and sources to show that it is independently notable and significant, so this article should not be deleted. 172.103.227.244 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC) - block-evading editor's comment struck out - JBW [reply]
No, it doesn't have even one solid or notability-building source in it, but is depending entirely on press releases and blogs and one blurb in a community news website. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lesliechin1 (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just because a radio brand is not independently notable of its media company and its stations does not mean that it should be redirected or deleted. Take a look at Move Radio and Pure Country for example. Those brands have some sources that are basically from the same website and practically have the same issue as this brand, and yet they are still being kept. In fact, as said above, radio brands do not fall under WP:NCORP, so this should not even be considered as such an issue and the article should be left as it should be. BS(chat • contribs) 00:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS usually carries little weight in AfD discussions. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 6 July 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bounce_Radio&oldid=1032353266"