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 speedy keep. per SK1 (I know there's a delete !vote but notability was proven by sources thus making the delete !vote moot), Thanks JMWt for your help in finding sources :). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GTFM[edit]

GTFM (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, Due to the moronic station name I cannot find anything at all on the station, Even "GTFM Wales" shows nothing, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News and media-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Davey2010 - searches did not turn up enough to show it meets notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this is a radio station with an OFCOM license to broadcast on fm, therefore it seems to me to be at least as notable as many other British community radio stations with pages on wikipedia. It is a page with a fairly small geographic footprint, I can't see that a lack of links found on google is sufficient to determine notability - or indeed whether the page should be deleted. If this kind of AfD is allowed, I think it is a dangerous precedent whereby only radio stations with a wide geographic listenership are considered notable. That said, the content is rubbish, I'm not sure that a person arriving to find out more about the station would learn anything of value from it. JMWt (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because it has an Ofcom licence doesn't mean it should get an article, With the greatest of respect If there's nothing on Google or anywhere else that establishes notability then it doesn't deserve an article, Not true community stations can be and are in most cases are notable but some stations like this one aren't notable. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to clarify, WP:NMEDIA does state that if a station has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC, CRTC, Ofcom, etc.), then it needs to make no further claim of notability beyond the fact of having a license — but the fact of having a license does not constitute an exemption from having to reliably source the resulting article. A radio station does not gain an entitlement to keep an article that's permanently unsourced, or based solely on primary sources like its own website — it's the quality of reliable source coverage that you can provide to support the notability claim, not the mere fact that an unsourced claim of notability has been asserted, that gets a radio station in the door. Better sourcing might be possible here if somebody has access to a better database of British media coverage than what shows up on Google News — I only have deep database access to Canadian newspapers, so I'm not the angel of salvation here — but having an Ofcom license does not give a radio station a "no sourcing required" freebie. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we're talking about two different things here, first whether the station is notable, and deserves a page, at all. I agree with Bearcat (and apparently WP:NMEDIA) that having a broadcast license should be enough to fulfil the notability challenge. The secondary question is about the sourcing. And I would agree that the sourcing on the page is bad. I said this above - I'm saying the page should be kept even if it is decided that the content needs paring and the sources improved. I also note that according to local media, an independent survey suggested that it was the most listened-to radio station in the broadcast area. I've been able to find references on the station in other local media, from the Welsh government, from OFCOM, from the UK charity regulator. I therefore disagree that this station is not notable and politely suggest that it ought to be possible to rewrite the page sourcing information from outwith of their own primary source. I think that would make it a more valuable page for potential visitors wanting to find out about the most popular radio station in their area, even if it has limited interest to anyone else. JMWt (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added some extra references from books, OFCOM official documents, news reports etc. Please can you take a look and tell me if this (obviously still incomplete) improvement addresses any of the issues raised here? If not, can you please explain what it is that would be needed? JMWt (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's definitely heading very much in the right direction — I'd certainly like to still see a little bit more if possible, but you yourself acknowledged that it's "obviously still incomplete", and there is enough meat to what's already there that I can officially now take a position one way or the other: flag for refimprove, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 12:52, 10 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.