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 that the article should be kept and improved. Mallanox 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitz Radio UK

[edit]
Hitz Radio UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The subject of this article is a non-notable internet radio station which has received several minor press mentions. In my view, it violates WP:CORP. The main author of the article is involved in a rival internet radio project, SixHits Digital Radio, which makes it slightly questionable under WP:COI. There is no reason for the article to stay; none of the events described are particularly notable. Digital Spy Poster 20:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion removed. You're the only one against this, i believe you to be involved with Hitz Radio UK. Provide evidence IfYouCanSoCanI 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - surely the question of whether a page was created by an administrator, a newly-registered user or Lord Lucan is utterly irrelevant. Digital Spy Poster 20:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kev, I can guarantee to you that I'm nothing to do with Hitz Radio. I'm not posting this stuff under my usual Wikipedia name because I'll get the unpleasant types who've been on Ryan Dunlop's back for months (Rysin 3 in particular seems to have nothing better to do) on my back. I happen to think Dunlop's an idiot, but I wouldn't wish these internet hatchet jobs on him forever and a day. Digital Spy Poster 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please try to be a little more civil when commenting, i wrote one article and followed the story when I had time, I feel i had more of a reason than most, i met up with Ryan Dunlop and he wasted my time. If you've nothing to do with Hitz Radio UK, some people would say you have nothing better to do, adding all these delete templates to articles. Rysin3 22:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speaking to EstEffect (who is offline due to ISP issues) he has stated this fits a lot of guidelines, notability etc... as it has been featured in the national newspapers etc... - he stated we would put this up for un-deletion should be be able to get online, but is not in a position to do so currently.Kev Akas 22:43, 2 June 2007 (GMT)
Comment - Dunlop's claims are verifiable as they've been reproduced in the press, but there are long passages countering those claims in the article which cite nothing other than blog posts and forum discussions, some of which aren't even visible to the public. Blogs and forums aren't valid citations on Wikipedia. I'd like to see the article reduced to just those points which have been raised in the press, with a short mention of the fact that there are doubts over it, with perhaps a link to James Cridland's blog. Digital Spy Poster 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree generally with the above. Per my earlier comment, the subject may well warrant an article; but as it stands the article is dubiously sourced, and seems to be largely devoted to casting doubt on the claims of this Internet radio station. I remain deeply concerned about the completely unsubstantiated allegation of illegal behaviour, not least because it potentially opens Wikipedia and/or individual editors to claims of defamation. As a more minor point, I suggest that being mentioned in (UK) national newspapers is not in itself a certain indication of notability. Barnabypage 00:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How about the completely unsubstantiated allegations of legal behaviour? PPL and MCPS-PRS have confirmed in e-mails to me that HitzRadioUK does not carry any form of legal licensing. Furthermore, investigations of his servers have found that they carry a potential maximum of 120 concurrent listeners. Furthermore, a simple Alexa search has proven that his site and station do not have anywhere near the website hits he claimed.

RE: BLPC - NPOV is surely satisfied. References to specific names that are not part of the references in primary and secondary sources have been removed. Specific date of birth removed to protect privacy. Several words have been changed over edits, example "clearly not true" deleted, false to unlikely, did not have to uncertainty, a different name to slightly different, copied from to suspected to be similar to, suggestions over something rather than clearly blaming. Besides the changes to words and sentences, many sentences have been totally deleted to protect privacy and delete rumour and unverifiable and uncited sources. The main person in question is named as it is in the various primary, secondary and tertiary sources cited. Other names have been removed, so has the primary persons date of birth. I contest that the latter edits, on the whole, satisfy NPOV, BPLC and NOR. All are referenced and cited. Some are from tertiary sources in regard to the primary subject's internet forum postings. However at least 2 of these are also corroborated by a statement on camera in the STV news report, which is a verifiable PRIMARY source. As for the point about forum sources. Some of the forum sources as mentioned above have been corroborated on camera. So therefore they validate the forum posts by Mr Dunlop. As these forum posts are validated in that fashion, they also provide proof of copyright infringements by association in the same forum posts. I'm referring here to Sky News and having an Ofcom license stipulating taking the news from them. As for other copyright infringements, I have copied "The King" show webpage prior to the photo images being taken down. These images and other names are specifically talked about in the ELE website. If anyone can suggest a web host in which to display and link to as cited proof, then I can do that. Anybody that would still like to contest any information here, please go ahead and suggest changes that would make it, in your opinion, adhere to any policies. Remember that anything, either adding in evidence or contrary to it, should be cited and referenced by primary or secondary sources preferably, as already seen in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.107.123 (talk • contribs) — 81.97.107.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If you read most of the arguments for deletion, you'll see that notability is not the primary concern here. The problem is verifiability and original research, particularly synthesis of sourced statements to advance a point. Take, for instance, this paragraph:
Hitz Radio UK has also breached trademark and copyright for it's show "The King".[32] This is a regular programme on the station, in which a presenter impersonates the late Elvis Presley. The station's website includes photography of Elvis Presley and text saying that "The King of Rock 'n' Roll hosts his very own show's on Hitz Radio UK" and, "The King's official home on the radio". By including such photography, names of "The King", "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" with immitation and making other remarks, they are infringing further copyrights held by Elvis Presley Enterprises.[33] As of 30th May 2007, the Elvis Presley photography has been removed.
The two sources cited merely show that the station did indeed use the name "the King" for one of its shows and that Elvis Presley Enterprises claims intellectual property rights over a variety of things related to Presley. This is not the same thing as breaching trademark and copyright, but more to the point, nobody else has claimed that the station breached trademark or copyright here. Showing that he used any other trademarks or copyright material is not enough. You must cite this claim to a reliable source that states these uses to be infringing, if you want to claim they are. This paragraph should come out until somebody else mentions it. And it isn't the only such example. It's just the first one I spotted while rapidly scrolling through the page.
Some of the acusations are cited to message boards, which are almost always not reliable sources. Others require the viewer to make a judgement themselves to verify them (e.g. the accusation that he is using a free web design template without following the conditions of use on it). Another example:
It is unclear as to how [Dunlop's listening] figures are derived. Rajar, who is the UK radio industry's main listener statistics provider, base figures on concurrent figures over short duration.[8]
This is a textbook example of synthesis. It implies either one of two things not supported by the sources: that Dunlop claims to have used the same technique as Rajar or the fact that Dunlop's figures are produced using a different technique somehow shows dishonesty. You need to cite these opinions to someone who holds them, not to the facts that you used to develop them yourself. JulesH 08:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is outside the scope of BLPC when all else is satisfied, that the reliable sources of information give the reader a somewhat automatic assumption to form a bias. That is not any editors fault, if what remains cannot be deleted. It is only the already present well cited and reliable primary or secondary sources that lead the reader to form any bias. I agree that further edits should be closely monitored, especially if further primary or secondary sources present themselves.81.97.107.123 20:28, 5 June 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.
More