Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Radio

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time Radio[edit]

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the nature of pirate radio stations, you can't expect them to shout about their activities from the roof tops can you? Therefore some information regarding them will remain unknown and so cannot be included in an article. This in turn means that finding no sources does not really mean in this case that the article is poor. --Cexycy (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you explain Time Radio's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N? Your "shouting from the roof-tops" statement is irrelevent, as that is more a self-promotion issue, nothing to do with notability. If this station is notable, then there should be sources. Rapido (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I think you'll find my "shouting from the roof-tops" statement to be very relevent. For obvious reasons criminals want to try and cover up their sources, therefore making any pirate radio stadion harder to document compared to other "non-criminal" issues. As for the radio station itself, it must have existed otherwise there would be no need to create the article and we would not be having this discussion now. Any radio station which did exist would be notable for two reasons, it existed and Wikipedia has to be unbiased. I'm sure you can see my point. Personally I have never heard of this radio station but I understand that others have and therefore the article is for their benefit (and of course also there for people like myself who have an interest in such things). --Cexycy (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to cross verifiability and notability thresholds due to lack of independent reliable sources. That a website exists for this admittedly criminal activity does nothing to prove that there is an actual pirate station nor that it has any notability outside the heads of its involved persons. WP has plenty of articles on notable pirate radio stations but, based on the lack of third-party coverage, this one does not make the grade. - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cexycy makes an argument many do: that if sources don't exist for a subject (or type of subject) that associated articles should be kept anyway, just because it's unfair to ask for sources when there aren't any. This quaint POV has no basis in WP:V, the fundamental policy of the encyclopedia. To quote from it, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. RGTraynor 14:26, 27 December 2009 (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.