Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merseyland Alternative Radio (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyland Alternative Radio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable pirate radio station; previously AFD'd and deleted. Seems to be re-create Rapido (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable pirate station (along with Radio Jackie North) as the two most significant stations of '80s Northern UK pirate radio (there were many such stations, but these are the only two I'd really see as notable). I still fail to see why there is so much resistance to articles on these two stations. Not surprisingly, it's a great disincentive for anyone to work on their content when other editors are so obviously keen to delete these two. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you explain Merseyland Alternative Radio's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N?
  - Web coverage is out there, paper coverage in Soundwaves (the usual journal of record for UK pirate radio matters) and also NME and Sounds, the general music weeklies of the period. Similarly for RJN. Remember that these stations were operating in the pre-web era, so web coverage is scant and is generally limited to nostalgia fan sites.

The real reason why these two stations (and not the others) are notable is that they were the "home" stations for two people: Bert Williams and Rick Dane (on-air names) who were the driving force behind the many and varied radio pirates in NW England for many years. Most of the pirates came and went almost overnight, in a way that's far from notable, but these two stations were long-term features of the scene that the rest revolved around.

What is wrong (and has been used to delete these articles previously) is to apply the standards for US broadcast stations(!)

As to the large number of other UK pirate stations recently AfDed by Rapido, then for those I wouldn't argue that they were notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can find no reference to Soundwaves anywhere, and no I cannot "check my back issues" as you previously instructed me to do! You seem to be suggesting that the 2 stations are mostly notable for having Bert Williams and Rick Dane as DJs. However they do not have their own articles themselves, thus if they are not notable, how can the stations be notable as a result? Rapido (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is firstly that notability is inherited(wrong), and secondly that the current non-existence of an article on the progenitor of such notability invalidates any notability of the related article (wrong again). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You said: The real reason why these two stations (and not the others) are notable is that they were the "home" stations for two people: Bert Williams and Rick Dane. Even if that were added to the articles, they would still fail WP:N, unless you can provide reference to your currently uncited assertions on why the stations were notable for having these DJs. Rapido (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You (and you alone, as far as I can see) have repeatedly AfDed articles on these two stations, and on most other pirate stations. This has been justified(sic) by them being "from long ago" and because they don't have US station registrations. Sources have also been provided (print & web) and you have raised permissible, albeit nit-picking, criticism of the reliability of those sources (although you've still failed to address why the Liverpool Echo isn't WP:RS). Clearly the sourcing of these topics isn't great, but that's far from unusual for niche interests of this pre-web period. Nor do I see that as the most terrible wikicrime, when the most trivial of garbage gets added with "sources", just because of the accumulation of near-worthless web content attached to everything these days.

Clearly you have something of an axe to grind here. No matter how many other editors see these two articles as notable, you will re-AfD them. That's not a consensus action. Nor for that matter is your persistent refusal to notify other involved editors of the AfD, as required. In that context, it's hard to justify putting much effort into an article when one editor is so persistently trying to destroy it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See WP:AOBF, please desist from such accusations in future. Here is for discussing the article, not for discussing me. The AFD is nothing to do with US licences, or where you get such an idea from. I am not even in the US or care for their licenced stations, so that has no relevence. You say No matter how many other editors see these two articles as notable, well at the previous AFD for this article, you were the only one with a keep, and the article was deleted. The article has since been recreated with more or less the same content, and same lack of sources or notability, so it's obvious to re-AFD it. For Radio Jackie North, it was AFD'd twice before, and was deleted both times; as well as being speedy deleted another time. Rapido (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - There may not be too much in the article but then again pirate stations always were a bit "underground" shall we say? At leats there are a couple of references. --Cexycy (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The above is irrelevant. The article fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 29 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) 02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find no evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, and the article doesn't even make an attempt at claiming otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 1 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.