- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Planet FM 94 Islamabad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2011, no assertion of notability, COI tagged since 2011, article creator User:PlanetFM94 was an SPA blocked the same day as a spammer. Deprodded as "licensed stations are usually notable" which is not true in the least, thus here we are at AfD. MSJapan ( talk) 05:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Licensed stations are generally considered notable, see WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Article appears to have NPOV. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- So are you saying that all stations are notable even if they're not present in reliable secondary sources or even if they're suspected as hoaxes? Speaking of hoaxes, in case you're not aware, there are articles about TV and radio stations which are suspected hoaxes or do not really exist at all, specifically the ones based in the Philippines; some of which have been deproded by you. Such deception has been an issue for years at some WikiProjects like
WP:TAMBAY and
WP:WPRS.
121.54.54.171 (
talk)
00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ 121.54.54.171: Thank you for this information. I have recently looked through a number of pages that have the WP:TAMBAY project banner and was surprised at the amount of poor sourcing or lack of sourcing on these Wikipedia articles. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:V is important. The station definitely exists, you can listen to it yourself here and elsewhere. The site does seem to be a bit of a mess but I found one live page indicating a relationship between Planet 94 and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- So are you saying that all stations are notable even if they're not present in reliable secondary sources or even if they're suspected as hoaxes? Speaking of hoaxes, in case you're not aware, there are articles about TV and radio stations which are suspected hoaxes or do not really exist at all, specifically the ones based in the Philippines; some of which have been deproded by you. Such deception has been an issue for years at some WikiProjects like
WP:TAMBAY and
WP:WPRS.
121.54.54.171 (
talk)
00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - COI editing, Single purpose account, and so on. This topic is not covered in reliable sources at all, nevermind signifigant coverage. Obviouly, the intent of this article is to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Also, thanks for catching this @ MSJapan:. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 121.54.54.171 ( talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. A radio station does not get over NMEDIA just because its own primary source website verifies that it exists — internet radio streams that don't pass NMEDIA typically also have websites, and really determined hoaxers have created their own "websites" to support the existence of fake radio stations that existed only inside their own imagination. So it takes reliable sources to pass NMEDIA rather than mere unsourced assertions. Accordingly, I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (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.
- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 12:24, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Planet FM 94 Islamabad ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2011, no assertion of notability, COI tagged since 2011, article creator User:PlanetFM94 was an SPA blocked the same day as a spammer. Deprodded as "licensed stations are usually notable" which is not true in the least, thus here we are at AfD. MSJapan ( talk) 05:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS ( talk) 08:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Licensed stations are generally considered notable, see WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Article appears to have NPOV. ~ Kvng ( talk) 22:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- So are you saying that all stations are notable even if they're not present in reliable secondary sources or even if they're suspected as hoaxes? Speaking of hoaxes, in case you're not aware, there are articles about TV and radio stations which are suspected hoaxes or do not really exist at all, specifically the ones based in the Philippines; some of which have been deproded by you. Such deception has been an issue for years at some WikiProjects like
WP:TAMBAY and
WP:WPRS.
121.54.54.171 (
talk)
00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @ 121.54.54.171: Thank you for this information. I have recently looked through a number of pages that have the WP:TAMBAY project banner and was surprised at the amount of poor sourcing or lack of sourcing on these Wikipedia articles. Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- WP:V is important. The station definitely exists, you can listen to it yourself here and elsewhere. The site does seem to be a bit of a mess but I found one live page indicating a relationship between Planet 94 and Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation. ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- So are you saying that all stations are notable even if they're not present in reliable secondary sources or even if they're suspected as hoaxes? Speaking of hoaxes, in case you're not aware, there are articles about TV and radio stations which are suspected hoaxes or do not really exist at all, specifically the ones based in the Philippines; some of which have been deproded by you. Such deception has been an issue for years at some WikiProjects like
WP:TAMBAY and
WP:WPRS.
121.54.54.171 (
talk)
00:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom - COI editing, Single purpose account, and so on. This topic is not covered in reliable sources at all, nevermind signifigant coverage. Obviouly, the intent of this article is to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion. Also, thanks for catching this @ MSJapan:. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 121.54.54.171 ( talk) 07:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- In theory, per WP:NMEDIA the core notability criteria that a radio station has to meet to be keepable are that it (a) is duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) produces at least some of its own original programming rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster or translator of another station. But those criteria do both still have to be verifiable somewhere. A radio station does not get over NMEDIA just because its own primary source website verifies that it exists — internet radio streams that don't pass NMEDIA typically also have websites, and really determined hoaxers have created their own "websites" to support the existence of fake radio stations that existed only inside their own imagination. So it takes reliable sources to pass NMEDIA rather than mere unsourced assertions. Accordingly, I'm willing to revisit this if somebody can locate the proper sourcing necessary to verify that this station satisfies the inclusion criteria, but in this state it's a delete. Bearcat ( talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (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.