Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Wave (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 redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable radio station; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG / WP:N. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The common outcomes for broadcast media summary, which was cited in the first AFD as grounds for a speedy keep, is actually wrong about the consensus for satellite radio stations — WP:NMEDIA explicitly states that satellite radio channels are not entitled to an automatic presumption of independent notability unless they are themselves the subject of media coverage in reliable sources. Some satellite radio channels certainly do get over the bar as independent topics, but satellite radio channels are not all accepted as automatically qualifying for independent articles just because they exist — if primary source proof of their existence is all you can provide for sourcing, then they don't qualify for separate articles. That said, since they are plausible search terms, satellite radio channels which are deemed not to have sufficient RS coverage to qualify as independently notable should remain in place as redirects to List of Sirius XM Radio channels rather than simply being deleted. That indeed seems to be the case here — the only sources being cited are SiriusXM's own self-published directories of its own channel lineups — so redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels. (No prejudice against recreation in the future if actual RS coverage can actually be located.) Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. I agree with Bearcat's reading of WP:BCAST. The previous AFD, citing the abbreviated form of the guideline, shouldn't be considered controlling here (although, as it was a giant mass nom, early closure probably saved a lot of headache even if it wasn't on technically correct grounds). There's little-to-no specific coverage here, and a redirect is not only the suggested outcome, but the most preferable one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2015 (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.