Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bang 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Radio

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

Non notable radio station, Due to the moronic name I can't find anything at all on this station, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an unfortunate delete at least until it can ever be improved as radio stations are almost always kept but I simply see nothing better here. Pinging interested subject users RadioFan and Neutralhomer. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: Sorry, I have zero knowledge of UK radio stations. @Bearcat:, @Mlaffs: or @Dravecky: might know something more about UK stations than I do. Hopefully they can help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per NMEDIA...and consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NMedia's an essay not a guideline but anyway NMEDIA states A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources - As far as I can see there are no sources for the station,

It also states Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming - Well we have idea on the audience. The Broadcast history isn't entirely long and to be fair all radio stations have unique programmes but all of this IMHO doesn't mean it should be kept,

Notability IMHO needs to be proven not just assumed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there is no consensus either, Some get kept some get deleted .... –Davey2010^Talk 17:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Yeah, there is. If you are talking about the ones from the Philippines, that's because there is a TON of fake radio and television station articles floating around from there. Essentially they are blowin' 'em up and startin' over. No UK or US radio station articles have been deleted unless there was just cause. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I'm aware there's no consensus to keep 'em but we'll agree to disagree, Ah I had no idea about that but then again I've never worked on Phili radio stations, UK stations are deleted tho as I've nominated tons in the past and most if not all have been deleted, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing this awhile, so believe me when I say, there is strong consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was consensus to keep these all my prev radio AFDs would've been kept .... There's no consensus pure and simple. –Davey2010^Talk 19:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect, pure and simple. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is or was consensus to Keep these then none of my previous AFDs would've been deleted would they, All were deleted by different admins and most had about 3 or 4 delete !votes and not one Keep .... So clearly there is no consensus to Keep them!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMEDIA, to be clear, does not grant any radio station an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. It's true that if an article contains valid and proper sourcing, then NMEDIA does not require it to make any claim of notability more special than the possession of an Ofcom license — but it does not grant a station the right to stick around Wikipedia permanently on zero sourcing. We have seen claims that a radio station was duly licensed when it really wasn't — so it's not the claim of an Ofcom license that gets a radio station into Wikipedia, it's the sourcing that can be provided to properly verify the accuracy of the claim. Accordingly, I'm willing to flip if this sees sourcing improvement before closure, but in this completely unsourced state it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to have had significant coverage in reliable sources, fails GNG. And also, does not pass WP:BCAST.—UY Scuti ^Talk 18:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, SwisterTwister and UY Scuti. Not enough coverage to establish notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:56, 11 November 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.