Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pirate Radio (radio show)

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 --JForget 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Radio (radio show)[edit]

Entire article fails WP:Verifiability (possibly a WP:HOAX). Main section of article is an unsourced WP:BLP accusation against people named in the article as staff. No evidence the alleged "show" even existed on the radio, let alone has been used elsewhere or meets WP:Notability. It contains provably false claims of legal facts that affect Wikipedia itself. In short: once WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:COPYVIO violations are removed, article has no content at all, and there is no reason to believe it ever will have. Closeapple (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Radio-related deletions and Tennessee-related deletions.

Delete and salt. Unsalvageable in the first place, and aggressively subjected to "avoidant vandalism" (removing and moving of maintenance templates) and WP:Gaming the system when salvaging (in vain) is attempted. So:
1. Fails WP:Verifiability: I tried looking. The article has not even one source that this program existed as an actual radio program. There's not even decent proof the radio stations themselves exist. I've tried looking for it; I found some mention that Trevecca Nazarene University owned an unlicensed station somewhere, but that was it. There are vague claims like "according to the FCC" and "The Tennessean covered this scandal extensively"; there's no evidence either of those are true. (When I tried to clarify the stations, it was reverted.)
2. The entire description of the program is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: it accuses at least 8 named, living people of regularly slandering others, "reportedly" committing federal crimes by participating in broadcasts outside an FCC license, and generating 78 complaint to the FCC. (Attempts to remove this have been repeatedly reverted, despite WP:BLP policy to remove slander immediately.)
3. It contains links to works which are clearly within their copyright term, and also contains the "20th Century Fox Fanfare", which is clarly copyrighted, all with no sources, no provenance, and no license, just a claim of "fair use" with no fair use rationale provided. (Attempts to remove the most blatant example, the one with the Fanfare, have been reverted.)
4. It contains clearly false claims of fact: that works become public domain simply through lack of enforcement. This not only affects this article, but misleads readers about facts relating to Wikipedia's own basic copyright guidelines. (Attempts to remove this have been reverted.)
5. This article has lasted 2 years; in that time, editors who pay enough attention to this article to aggressively re-insert Wikipedia violations have not been able to provide any sources for anything, even WP:BLP claims, even when it's clear that uncited facts are going to be removed. If this article was going to have reliable sources (or any sources), it would have by now.
I made the mistake of trying to clean it up first instead of going straight for AfD. Article history and Talk:Pirate Radio (radio show) show how that went. (See Article discussion at time of AfD and in case someome tries to "refactor" their comments during AfD.) See also User talk:AmAB at time of AfD and User talk:Closeapple at time of AfD. Not sure if the editors involved have a conflict of interest or what, but a couple of them sure have been aggressive about making sure nobody even sees maintenance templates at the top of the article and that show clips stay linked. --Closeapple (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After seeing comments below — including one of the named, living people in the article saying he is being slandered again even after he removed the slander — it is clear that the authors of this article have been engaging in these violations persistently over the long term, so they will most likely just try to recreate the article with some excuse then introduce violations again later. Therefore, I've added "and salt", so that administrators don't have to go through what I had to. (On another note: The "fair use" claims for those clips were only mentioned in comments when I tried to delete them. The editors have made no attempt to justify fair use in the article; they rely on re-introducing provably false claims of public domain instead.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Closeapple 100%. Great analysis of this article by the way. I tried looking up this particular station and frequency in that area and got nothing. I couldn't even find a site (other than Wikipedia) that hosts the image provided. It clearly fails WP:N, especially after not getting a single hit. ~Beano~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Closeapple's analysis. After some preliminary searches, I couldn't verify anything about the radio station. LinguistAtLarge 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. I have never eidted on wikipedia before, but I've been a reader for years now, so my opinion my not matter as much as eveyone else's. The article really does have problems and probably should be vigorously edited including may sections deleted, but I was able to find evidence of both the channels listed by googling the frequencies plus (+) nashville. I also found other sites refering to the show by googling, but you're right beano, no image hosting other than wikipedia. My guess is that it has been edited by people involved with the show, but that doe not make it un-notable. But I'm new, so I understand if what I think is not as important.Hashmark (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the way to go about establishing the subject's notability would be to add good references for the content already tehre or to add new content with good references. As this article seems to be reaching a consensus for delete, I suggest you wait until it's gone and write a new article on the subject, if you think it's notable and interesting. You can certainly copy and save any information from the present article that you think is useful. Or you're more than welcome to fix what's there and ask people to reconsider. Welcome to Wikipedia! And you may want to consider using the more standard formatting of saying Keep instead of Do not Delete, but that's just a standards issue and no big deal. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable touching the article. I dont know if it meets wikipedia's standards for notability or not, but it does look like it did exist and even if just some of the information is true i think it's interesting. But I don't know how to fix all the problems that are there. I mean, it's obvious it needs help and should be worked on by someone, but it doesn't make sense to me to delete it completely, just the parts that are not verifiable. But I can't do it, I'm a reader not a writer. Sorry about putting do not delete instead of Keep. Thank you ChildofMidnight though for your warm welcome and kindness.Hashmark (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt lacks 3rd party references, it's been tagged with this and additional problems for over a year. If reliable sources haven't surfaced by now, they aren't going to. The controversy Closeapple (thanks for the detailed info) references leads me to believe that this article needs to be salted as well.--Rtphokie (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE Delete I was sent a copy of this trash a couple of years ago. My name is Travis Young and I was on the show pirate radio myself. At least 75% of what is in the article is untrue and slanderous. I tried to remove slanderous references to my name a long time ago [[1]] and [[2]] but it looks like other people keep putting them back in. PLEASE get rid of this article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traviswiki (talk • contribs) 01:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourceable and unremarkable, although I don't see a reason to salt as it has never been deleted before. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 15:56, 17 November 2008 (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.