Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dandelion 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 Keep as notability is provided by refs. AKRadecki 22:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion Radio

Contested prod. Non notable internet radio station, no verifiable independent sources about the station establishing its notability. Being inspired by a very notable DJ isn't enough... Note that while the "Festive Fifty" was continued after the BBC dropped it, the article doesn't say who asked to take it over, and I can't find any evidence that it was the BBC who did the asking (which would possibly be a claim to notability). Fails WP:WEB / WP:NOTE. Fram 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dandelion Radio has a significant online presence, and several thousand regular listeners. Radio 1's former John Peel production team invited Dandelion Radio to continue the running of the Festive Fifty, as has been mentioned online in the blog posted by producer Louise Kattenhorn here. The radio station, its Festive Fifty and how to vote has been promoted on numerous occasions during Radio 1's late night special interest shows such as Huw Stephens and Rob Da Bank. The poster of the deletion proposal made no attempt to define exactly why he felt that Dandelion Radio was "non-notable", as he clearly isn't a listener to the station and is unaware of its listenership. Further evidence of the station's worth on Wikipedia can be found at online article from Portsmouth's local newspaper The News here. Content of the entry is factual and culturally significant, explaining what is a very popular Internet radio station that is fully licenced with the PRS-MCPS Alliance and PPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs) --— 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Considering the comment about BBC and Festive 50 ...

While private correspondance with BBC staff is not available for linking - there is evidence available of support from BBC Radio 1 with on air trails and comment about Dandelion Radio running the Festive 50 by BBC Radio 1 DJs. Examples include those on Huw Stephens Radio 1 show on 7th December 2006 and 3rd Jan 2007. These links are being made available purely to aid in the process and are have not been more generally linked to.
30/11/2006
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-lfjdoiulfnlkjsoisu09435.mp3
7/12/2006
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-poiudsf87w9875jkf9.mp3
3/1/2007
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-87643hjkg98734xdf098734.mp3

was also mentioned by Rob Da Bank on Radio 1 in November 2006
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-753201gr543ew7yuhg.mp3

Happy to enter into further discussions on the topic (Paul Webster - Backroom at Dandelion Radio). — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulWebsterUK (talk • contribs)

The BBC Radio article is a blog which does not represent views of the British Broadcasting Corporation, so that shouldn't even be considered in this discussion. The radio station website appears to be very poorly designed and not up to the quality of reputable internet radio stations like shoutcast or live365. This leads me to believe that this station is even less reputable, does not have a large number of listeners. Anybody can start an internet radio station, but not everyone deserves to be on Wikipedia. This one is strong evidence for that. I also highly doubt that it has several thousand regular listeners as User:86.153.10.222 claims. If it is show, it should be able to provide some sort of evidence for those statistics. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In response to the statement that, "The radio station website appears to be very poorly designed and not up to the quality of reputable internet radio stations" - anyone considering the quality of a radio station by its web presence is making a very strong case against their own qualifications to judge its worthiness or otherwise. The Dandelion Radio website is simple and functional, in keeping with the ethos of the DJ who inspired it. Shallow slickness was a very infrequent contributor to Peel's show and the Dandelion Radio DJs see no reason to make it a more regular feature. To be inspired by Peel would not be to adorn the website with showy visuals or Flash animation. This is not included in any case for keeping the DR Wiki page, rather to note that its deletion on a subjective judgment of its website's appearance would be nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.142 (talk • contribs)
Comment In response to the statement that, "The poster of the deletion proposal made no attempt to define exactly why he felt that Dandelion Radio was "non-notable"," look at the end of the deletion proposal - you will see "Fails WP:WEB / WP:NOTE." Those two links take you to two of Wikipedia's "Notability guidelines", which define what is and is not notable for Wikipedia purposes. If you want to make a case to have this article kept, I suggest you follow those links and read those pages. However, when you linked to the Portsmouth newspaper article you did yourself a favor. The big thing about notability is that on Wikipedia it boils down to are the claims made in the article verifiable from multiple, independant, reliable sources?. Notability is a guideline - but it is based on verifiability, which is a basic site policy. That newspaper article is one independant, reliable source. Dig up several more, make sure that each and every claim in the article can be traced back to one, and you'll have yourself a good article by Wikipedia standards, and it'll be kept. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC) (Edit conflict)[reply]

Comment Note - links to recordings of 4 references on BBC Radio 1 have been provided above.

Listener statistics are provided quarterly to the UK licencing authorities and form part of the basis of the fees that the station pays. One could argue that this action alone is worthy of making Dandelion Radio "notable" since very few internet-only radio stations have registered with the authorities (in the UK at least) and are paying their fees which in turn aid the copyright holders and performing artists. Evidence of this can be provided off-line since the issuing authorities do not appear to maintain a public list of which stations have registered and are paying fees. --PaulWebsterUK 21:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Radio Station in Portsmouth called 'The Quay'. It has an entry on Wikipedia: 107.4 The Quay. They are no less "notable" than Dandelion Radio in that they exist. Their entry is merely a couple of sentences, and is equally as verifiable as Dandelion Radio, if not less so. How does one define the difference between a radio station that exists as a commercial enterprise, or one that exists purely as a cultural and creative entity? It's like saying a charity run by volunteers is less significant than the aid that Governments pay from their citizens' tax.

And as for saying that an organisation or individual shouldn't be on Wikipedia on the basis of the design ethic of their website, that is pathetic. It is nothing quantifiable by its very nature, especially when you consider that Dandelion Radio is run by volunteers with full-time jobs to hold down, and that Live 365 has a team of professional web designers and a marketing team behind it. More to the point, the number of visitors a site gets isn't necessarily governed by its design aesthetic. Dandelion Radio is an online Internet radio station that many people enjoy, and many bands get equal pleasure from being given exposure on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs)

Comment By saying that Louise Kattenhorn doesn't represent the BBC's official position doesn't mean that her blog should be discounted, as she was Peel's producer and friend. Also, Rob da Bank

and Huw Stephens are both are BBC Radio 1 broadcasters with established reputations, and Rob is a promoter, too. We're not entirely sure what more evidence you want other than private emails or telephone calls - and that would contravene the Data Protection Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.10.222 (talk • contribs)

Comment Reference to Dandelion Radio running Festive 50 in The Guardian newspaper on 1st December 2007.

On-line version of this national daily paper http://media.guardian.co.uk/diary/story/0,,1963618,00.html (see entry for Wednesday November 29) PaulWebsterUK 07:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article length is commensurate with its importance. Slightly Selassie 08:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To aid with notability discussion ... some of the artists featured by John Peel over the years have recorded special idents/trails for Dandelion Radio. Random selections are played between shows - but rather than have WP editors have to go and listen to the station to confirm this ... here are some direct links (files will be removed once this process is complete)

Ted Chippington
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-ted-lsadoiklmndsflshkfds.mp3
David Gedge
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-DG-sljdf23094opjeipjr.mp3
Half Man Half Biscuit
http://www.DandelionRadio.com/audio/wiki-HMHB-soiufdsf098sdohfas334cxv.mp3

PaulWebsterUK 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — PaulWebsterUK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Further external links have been added to support the case for Dandelion radio retaining the Wikipedia entry, including a BBC Radio 1 John Peel documentary with contributions from Dandelion Radio members Andrew Morrison, Neil Jenkins and Phil Edwards, two CMU Music Network industry daily newsletter items about the 2006 Festive Fifty and Dandelion-related events and shows, and a tracklist archive of Andrew Morrison's previous shows on the station.

Also included are links to the MySpace pages of Dandelion DJs that have them - containing further information about the shows and many messages of support and praise for the station from artists and listeners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.66.148 (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that myspace (a self promotion website) should NEVER be used to show verifiability or notability. --Адам12901 ^T/_C 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. That had just occurred to me at the time you wrote the above message, as you will see from the time of my last edit in which I removed the MySpace links (they were rather excessive too). There are now more than enough external links to a variety of sources and media to justify ongoing inclusion on Wikipedia anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.66.148 (talk • contribs)

Comment I have conducted what we consider the final edits to this page to satisfy Wiki standards. It would seem that the reference to Dandelion Radio on Wiki's own page on the Festive 50 would make some entry for DR indispensible to Wikipedia. Sources from The Guardian, Portsmouth News and the blog of Peel's producer would seem to legitimate DR's status sufficiently to warrant a short factual entry such as this. We would appreciate further suggestions if you still don't think this entry is satisfactory. We would be especially interested if you still think there is a case for full deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.142 (talk • contribs)
Comment Thanks for your note about tildes. Putting DR's Wiki page on a five-day countdown to extinction imposed a pretty sharp learning curve on me and the niceties of protocol were not my priority. However given the frequency of Wiki's patrollers' intervention until the last amendments, I wonder if one of you could now advise the page's status as far as you're concerned? Thank you.--81.101.133.142 18:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION! Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Keep Article now demonstrates that the subject has recieved attention from mainstream news sources. Could still be a bit better; but the threshold for notability is met. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}
Comment Why is a citation needed regarding payment of royalties? This detail is included in Wiki's own Phonographic Performance Limited page. If evidence is needed that they distribute royalties, it should be for their page, not DR's. --81.101.133.142 08:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

problem solving 23:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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.