MKFM – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the decision to close as "delete" was correct. A fourth relisting in my capacity as DRV closer would not be appropriate. The decision to delete therefore remains in force for lack of a consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 14:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MKFM (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This article related to a licensed community radio station in the United Kingdom. The decision to delete appears to have been a very tight one. Other, very similar pages about similar radio stations have been kept - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_FM_(2nd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOAD-LP. Thank you. Flip Format (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Allow recreation: This article appears to have been caught up in a wider debate as to whether licensed radio stations, regardless of their size, are inherently notable per WP:GNG and/or whether WP:BCAST is a policy or an opinion. My assessment is that either the MKFM article is allowed to be recreated, or there would have to be a mass deletion of articles about similar community radio stations. Flip Format (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Decline and yes, mass delete similar non-notable stations that fail WP:GNG too, per WP: Wikipedia is not. But see also WP:other stuff exists. AGF but it is difficult to read this request as other than intended to reverse the thin end of a wedge: if MKFM goes then whither the other little league stations. (Fwiw, the station is described at Milton Keynes#Communications and media which says, in half a sentence, all that is worth saying.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus per WP:NHC. The fact that WP:BCAST hasn't yet been codified as a guideline does not make those referencing it have intrinsically weaker positions. After all, people reference WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TNT all the time in deletion discussions, and neither are guidelines. If we really want to say that admins should ignore !votes based on established positions that don't yet have the imprimatur of 'guideline' there are a whole lot of discussions which should be reclosed differently... Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] To elaborate a bit, I believe the closer's error is assigning the GNG a "non-negotiable" status. Notability has never held this position in Wikipedia. Notability has had guideline status for the 15 years I've been here, but the relevant non-negotiable policies are NPOV, NOR, and V, none of which this article transgressed. While there are many people who don't like the idea that certain things are presumed notable and we should have an article on them just because they can be shown to exist regardless of whether the GNG is met doesn't mean that N has been elevated to policy. I'm surprised this isn't actually listed at WP:PEREN. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] The issue isn't that the GNG is non-negotiable but that arguments citing it should be given a bit more weight than comments along the lines of "Yeah, I think we should have an article on this", since it's a guideline. There is definitely scope for exceptions to be made to guidelines, but there wasn't much of a case for that here other than a reference to WP:BCAST, a failed notability proposal. I don't think the other two essays you cited are comparable, WP:FANCRUFT is really an interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:NOT#PLOT or other content policies, and WP:TNT isn't a rationale for deleting anything by itself. Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] IINFO is among the most misused, if not the most misused, deletion rationales, most often it is used against overly-discriminate (that is, niche) articles or lists. Fewer than 5% of the time IINFO is cited does one of the four specific examples even remotely apply. TNT is used in AfDs all the time as an excuse to not follow ATD. If you haven't seen either of these things, then I would encourage you to look at more fictional elements AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] I don't believe I'd have much to add to what I said in the close of this AfD. In this instance, no editors refuted the claim that the subject did not pass the GNG. In the other two discussions mentioned, several editors did, so of course those had different outcomes. Of course, if someone can find sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG, I have no objection to recreation. If that doesn't exist, then deletion was the proper outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'm right on the borderline here. I'd say NC appears to be the best assessment of the discussion, but I'm not sure if delete is within discretion or not. Could we get a temporary undelete so we can see the sources in the article that were referenced during the AfD? A concern is that it's probably not ideal to delete something that's borderline while the relevant SNG is being discussed. But I have to agree nothing in the AfD itself looked like it helps with the GNG. But I find it really (really) unlikely that there aren't sources on this. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC (Addendum: I'm also good with a relist as the sources in the article never got discussed.Hobit (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)). Sources in the article appear to be independent, reliable and non-trivial. Are they good enough for meeting WP:N? That's for the discussion to determine. Both Keep and Delete !voters made mention of those sources, but no one had really any argument than "is not" "is". Even if we discount the arguments about the proposed inclusion guideline, we have an NC outcome both in terms of numbers and strength of argument. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] The independent sources in the article were only that it had been given a broadcast license. The article had serious COI editing, which caused its head to go above the parapet and serious questions to be asked about notability. As a local area editor, I did try hard to find some, I wanted it to continue despite that editing, but I found none, nor did anyone else. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Erb? Could you point to the part of WP:N that says such an article can't be counted toward WP:N? The article that was deleted didn't seem overly promotional--the existance of COI editing isn't a reason to delete. And [1], which is in the article, predates the license by years and years. So no, they aren't all about them having gotten a broadcast license. And a brief search from there turns up a lot. [2]. Things like [3] and [4] seem quite decent. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Now that the article has been temp undeleted and I can see the edit history, it looks like there has been quite a bit of COI editing from someone (presumably within the MKFM organisation) consistently stating that it isn't a community radio station for whatever reason. The confusion here is perhaps because it's a community and a commercial radio station - its FM licence is for community radio, and its wider DAB digital licence is a commercial licence. It is, however, a licensed radio station of some years standing and I agree that an article being subject to COI editing isn't in and of itself grounds for deletion. If MKFM is not notable, is Heart East, which does have its own article but appears to be a regional rebroadcast of a station in London? Flip Format (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] No, of course COI editing is not a reason for deletion, I never said it was. To clarify, it was the COI editing that caused me and Fishplater to look at all the citations in the article only to find that almost all were self-referential. In summary, it is not notable. As for Heart East, I agree: propose it for deletion and I will support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Could it possibly be the case that you are simply not an expert in the field of radio broadcasting and are unable to find sources to improve the article yourself? Why, in that case, does it need to be deleted instead of improved by other editors who do know about broadcasting? Flip Format (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] I make no claim to any such expertise. But the fact remains that none of the participants in the AfD found any evidence of notability. Of course if you can produce any new WP:RS material, then we cease to have a problem. Meanwhile I have no doubt that if the article as it stood were submitted today to the AfC process as a new article, it would be dismissed out of hand for failure to meet GNG. Finally let me affirm that as soon as notability can be demonstrated, I will strongly support its (re-)creation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Note: Article temporarily undeleted for DRV (ping Hobit). Daniel (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] We seem to have an article called Community radio in the United Kingdom, which was actually mentioned in the AfD, and also a Timeline of independent radio in the United Kingdom, which wasn't. The AfD should have considered alternatives to deletion, at least some of which are as obvious as a coal pile in a ballroom, and didn't. Relist as a defective debate.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Clearly it could be included as a section of a larger article. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable to have its own. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] If it clearly could be included as a section of a larger article, why was this at AfD and why didn't you suggest a merge? Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] It was already mentioned in a larger article (Milton Keynes, see above), it didn't need its own article. If someone wants to mention it any other article, then who am I to stop them? If someone wants to recreate it as a redirect, then let them propose that. For better or worse, we have a number of nominators who are using AfD as articles for discussion, explicitly proposing a merge or redirect rather than deletion, Piotrus for instance. I find that discussions started in such an ATD-aware manner tend to invite people to meet in the middle, and I don't think that's a bad thing in the least. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you. Finding middle ground is important, and conversely, I find criticism of those who propose alternatives to deletion in their AfD comments, including nominations, very unhelpful. Anyway, I want to encourage people to consider suggesting alternatives such as redirects or merges in their AfDs. What's the harm? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| reply here} 04:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ok, but in this case it would be hard to carry out the selective merge that we need because the article was a redlink. There are also considerations about preserving attribution to think about.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The discussion was close. The keep votes made claims that the subject meets WP:NRADIO but did not explain why this is the case; and as such are very close to WP:ITSNOTABLE. As such, I concur that they were weak and can be disregarded, and those who made them are encouraged to explain why something is notable better. If such an argument could be made here properly, we could consider overturning this and relisting, perhaps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus\| reply here} 04:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:BCAST: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming." This station is licensed, permanent (inasmuch as recurring five-year licences are permanent) and originates its own programming from its own facilities rather than being a satellite/translator station, and so under that section of WP:BCAST it would be considered notable. I wonder if User:Sammi Brie would appreciate being tagged here to give her views. Flip Format (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the Keep side made no attempt to refute the central argument for deletion, which is that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Instead they focused on showing that it meets WP:NMEDIA, an essay with no official standing. A recent attempt to promote NMEDIA to guideline status failed in large part because it's overbroad and the radio-specific section would grant notability to almost every radio station. It would make sense to redirect to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom#Community radio stations. Hut 8.5 11:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus: Per reasons above. Whether they're refuted or not, the "keep" votes have merit whatsoever as the "delete" votes. I strongly agree with Jclemens that there's really nothing wrong with using essays that haven't reached the guideline status in explaining why a certain article should be kept or deleted, whether it's WP:FANCRUFT or WP:BCAST or whatever essay. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Just to add, the discussion was relisted thrice and I don't see a need to have it relisted. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Superastig: I second the motion. I believe discarding !keep votes that reference a "non-existent guideline" is a total BS. SBKSPP (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Pinging participants in the previous discussion @Fishplater, Spiderone, Jeepday, Whiteguru, Rillington, SportingFlyer, Neutralhomer, Superastig, and SBKSPP: as nom should have done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] We don't normally ping all participants from the AfD to take part in a DRV, DRV isn't intended to be a repeat of the AfD. Hut 8.5 11:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ok, my mistake, I was not so aware. Though in reality almost all of the discussion above is indeed a rerun of the AfD, not about whether the process was properly carried out or introducing new evidence that was not available for consideration last time (ignoring the WP:other stuff exists arguments). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Then perhaps you should stop professing to be an expert on the procedures (I freely admit I'm not) and stop talking down to me and others in this discussion. Flip Format (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Eh? Where have I professed to be an expert on the procedures? [for the record, I make no such claim]. Also, show me where you feel that I have 'talked down' to you? Do you mean where you challenged me for my failure to find sources readily available to subject experts, so I invited you to produce an example? I'm still waiting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] We already know that DRV isn't intended to be a repeat of the AfD. Every participant from the AfD has the right to share his/her thoughts on the closure and I see nothing wrong with that. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] I never said they couldn't. However the nominator certainly isn't expected to ping all the AfD participants, contrary to what John Maynard Friedman claimed above, and it doesn't add much to the discussion. The people who wanted the article kept are going to say that the AfD should be closed as Keep, the people who wanted the article deleted are going to say the AfD should be closed as Delete, and we're back to square one. DRV is best when it can bring outside input. Hut 8.5 16:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] As I said above, I have no expertise or even experience of this process [this is my first AfD nomination; I have also done just one RfD], so forgive my noobie error. I gained the impression that the case was being relitigated (rather than being challenged on the grounds of procedural errors or significant new evidence). So it seemed to make sense to reinvolve those who participated first time as it seemed to me that they might have something new to contribute given the passage of time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Question does anyone really feel that the arguments that the sources in the article don't meet the GNG were stronger than the ones that said it did? @Seraphimblade: states that "...no editors refuted the claim that the subject did not pass the GNG". But the claims that the sources in the article were not enough were simply "they aren't enough" and the ones that said they were simply said they were. Seraphimblade, did you evaluate the sources yourself? If not, could you explain how you see the argument in the AfD against the sources in the article meeting the GNG as stronger than the ones that said they were enough? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Who said that the article passes the GNG? The closest I can see to that is "The sources in the article seem reliable" and "I also found a few reliable sources which talk some of the station's programming", which aren't the same thing at all. The Keep comments were all based on WP:BCAST, which is a failed proposal that would make almost all radio stations notable. Hut 8.5 07:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Two people claim that the sources are reliable. I don't think they need to cite the GNG directly to make it clear they feel the GNG is met. The second one is "Sources presented above including the ones in the article are reliable enough". Hobit (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] The GNG requires a lot more than the existence of reliable sources. Hut 8.5 11:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Fair. But "Doesn't meet the GNG" isn't a lot more clear. And multiple, reliable, indpendent sources is commonly shorted to "reliable sources". I certainly think their arguments are saying they think the GNG is met. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I suppose we could ask them their intent. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] I voted and got pinged and don't really care anymore, but after reviewing, the arguments for keeping were "passes a non-existent guideline," and the arguments against were "fails GNG." I don't know how anyone can argue even for a no consensus in good faith. And please don't ping me, I won't respond, I only logged in to add a specific piece of information but checked why I had been pinged. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] I'd swear we are reading different AfDs. This one had people saying that the sources in the article met the GNG and one person provided other ones. I'd personally agree the new ones in the AfD were poor, but the ones in the article look just fine. If all mention of the "non-existent guideline" were removed, this could only be closed as NC. even dropping all those keep votes that only referenced said non-existent guideline'. Those poor arguments really shouldn't count as a negative, at most they should be ignored. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Weak Endorse - The closer correctly applied the applicable guideline in a situation where, in my stubborn opinion, the guidelines are wrong. I prefer SNGs to GNG, and think that deletion discussions would be more straightforward and cleaner if we didn't apply GNG as a procrustean bed that distorts the subject out of shape. But the community obstinately refused to upgrade the SNG to a real guideline, let alone to make it independent of GNG. So the closer was right, and this illustrates what is wrong with GNG supremacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn (relist), WP:Supervote. The closer analysed to conclude “delete”, but that analysis was too much his expertise and not enough apparent in the discussion. There were weak votes on both sides, and some more discussion would surely clarify consensus. Experts closing discussions to the bewilderment of non-expert participants is a bad thing. Relist, again. The nominator and User:SportingFlyer made good arguments, but they need more participants to agree with them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Do not overturn to “no consensus”. The discussion was clearly on the side of “delete”, but just needed more refutation of the weak “keep” !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I respectfully disagree with those editors who have said to Overturn and Relist. If the close is overturned, it should be overturned to No Consensus. The AFD has already been relisted three times, which is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] All three relists were pointless comment-free relists. They are a procedural waste of time and a visual distraction. They should be ignored. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] That is a misreading. That fact that the AFD was relisted three times is highly significant data: it tells us that substantial time was made available for different opinions to be registered. That absence of further remarks says that editors concluded that everything that should be said had already been said. It is obvious that we have reached the same point here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] The relists tell us nothing about time beyond what times stamps already have done. Completely disagree that everything that should have been said was said. Namely, the rebuffing of the many weak !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Related item It may assist editors in assessing this case to look at User talk:Fishplater#Your submission at Articles for creation: Secklow Sounds (July 24). (Secklow Sounds is the other local community radio station in Milton Keynes.) The AFC rejection was a fair one, with which I agreed. In the context of this discussion, though, how are the cases different? The RS information about each station is essentially the same. So any decision we make here really should explain adequately why MKFM is sufficiently notable but Secklow Sounds is not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Or, conversely, hold that the AfC rejection was inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to NC, do not Relist Per above arguments. The discussion has run its course after 3 relists. So, there's no need for a 4th relist since both !keep and !delete votes have good enough arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Nonsense. The AfD is peppered with “meets ABC”, “does not meet DEF”, “fails EFG therefor HIJ doesn’t count”. WP:VAGUEWAVES. The ONLY deeper substance comes from User:Superastig and User:SportingFlyer. Superastig offered six sources, and SportingFlyer refuted them all. User:SBKSPP’ late bland VAGUEWAVE only took the conversation backwards. I agree with the closer’s conclusion, but as it amounts to a 1:1 headbutting, it really needs another editor to engage on the substance. Even the nominator, User:John Maynard Friedman, would have done well to go to the source details. “No evidence of notability” is not quite BEFORE Standard, and “Only citations in the article are for…” demands a response to Superastig’s more sources !vote. If only User:Seraphimblade had !voted instead of closing, the AfD would have been a clear “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Even the nominator, User:John Maynard Friedman, would have done well to go to the source details. Which source details? If I (or to be more precise, Google) had found any such details, the question would never have arisen. Others have provided sources in this discussion (not the AFD): if they had done so at the AFD stage, I suspect that the outcome would have been to keep. Quite frankly, when I see unambiguously WP:trivial product-placement articles like List of The Union members being created with only "it needs citations" from the reviewer, I have to wonder why we bother with AFD. Let the weeds grow. Keep. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hi John, The specific details of superastig’s six sources, in particular. As for the nomination statement, I believe that it is better to explicitly state what search you did, how many results you looked at, and a comment on what sort of results they were. It’s not that I mean to criticise your nomination, it’s that in the face of !votes such as “meets WP:NRADIO”, more detail is needed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] (I meant to write "I wonder why we bother with GNG"). As I have said multiple time, I have no strong belief that the article should have been deleted – as the station serves my local area, I would be happy to see both it and its competitor included. But is is invidious to reject creation of an article for Secklow Sounds 'because it is NN' but keep MKFM which is just as N – or NN. I searched via Google for any third-party references and found only the original award of broadcasting licence to both stations. (Surely the AFD stage is the time to raise such questions and for others to validate my results: we all know that Google gives different results to different people at different times.) Superastig's citations were not presented at the AFD: if they had then maybe the outcome might have been different. It is not for me to judge whether or not they are good enough to overturn the AFD: I have no idea whether or not they are WP:RS. It seems that, within the terms of NRADIO, they are good enough, even if rather tenuous otherwise (to be missed by Google). I suspect that they are a lot more notable than the characters in a minor Marvel Comics franchise. I presented 'the case for the prosecution', Superastig and others have done likewise for the defence. If fellow editors are waiting for me to withdraw the nomination to bring this saga to a close, then I withdraw it. But it looks like I kicked over a hornet's nest of notability challenges to little-league radio stations so others may be less willing to let it drop. I can't be judge as well as prosecutor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply] There are strong arguments to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

MKFM – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether the decision to close as "delete" was correct. A fourth relisting in my capacity as DRV closer would not be appropriate. The decision to delete therefore remains in force for lack of a consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 14:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article related to a licensed community radio station in the United Kingdom. The decision to delete appears to have been a very tight one. Other, very similar pages about similar radio stations have been kept - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_FM_(2nd_nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOAD-LP. Thank you. Flip Format (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation: This article appears to have been caught up in a wider debate as to whether licensed radio stations, regardless of their size, are inherently notable per WP:GNG and/or whether WP:BCAST is a policy or an opinion. My assessment is that either the MKFM article is allowed to be recreated, or there would have to be a mass deletion of articles about similar community radio stations. Flip Format (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and yes, mass delete similar non-notable stations that fail WP:GNG too, per WP: Wikipedia is not. But see also WP:other stuff exists. AGF but it is difficult to read this request as other than intended to reverse the thin end of a wedge: if MKFM goes then whither the other little league stations. (Fwiw, the station is described at Milton Keynes#Communications and media which says, in half a sentence, all that is worth saying.) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per WP:NHC. The fact that WP:BCAST hasn't yet been codified as a guideline does not make those referencing it have intrinsically weaker positions. After all, people reference WP:FANCRUFT and WP:TNT all the time in deletion discussions, and neither are guidelines. If we really want to say that admins should ignore !votes based on established positions that don't yet have the imprimatur of 'guideline' there are a whole lot of discussions which should be reclosed differently... Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate a bit, I believe the closer's error is assigning the GNG a "non-negotiable" status. Notability has never held this position in Wikipedia. Notability has had guideline status for the 15 years I've been here, but the relevant non-negotiable policies are NPOV, NOR, and V, none of which this article transgressed. While there are many people who don't like the idea that certain things are presumed notable and we should have an article on them just because they can be shown to exist regardless of whether the GNG is met doesn't mean that N has been elevated to policy. I'm surprised this isn't actually listed at WP:PEREN. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue isn't that the GNG is non-negotiable but that arguments citing it should be given a bit more weight than comments along the lines of "Yeah, I think we should have an article on this", since it's a guideline. There is definitely scope for exceptions to be made to guidelines, but there wasn't much of a case for that here other than a reference to WP:BCAST, a failed notability proposal. I don't think the other two essays you cited are comparable, WP:FANCRUFT is really an interpretation of WP:NOT#IINFO or WP:NOT#PLOT or other content policies, and WP:TNT isn't a rationale for deleting anything by itself. Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IINFO is among the most misused, if not the most misused, deletion rationales, most often it is used against overly-discriminate (that is, niche) articles or lists. Fewer than 5% of the time IINFO is cited does one of the four specific examples even remotely apply. TNT is used in AfDs all the time as an excuse to not follow ATD. If you haven't seen either of these things, then I would encourage you to look at more fictional elements AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I'd have much to add to what I said in the close of this AfD. In this instance, no editors refuted the claim that the subject did not pass the GNG. In the other two discussions mentioned, several editors did, so of course those had different outcomes. Of course, if someone can find sufficient sourcing to pass the GNG, I have no objection to recreation. If that doesn't exist, then deletion was the proper outcome. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right on the borderline here. I'd say NC appears to be the best assessment of the discussion, but I'm not sure if delete is within discretion or not. Could we get a temporary undelete so we can see the sources in the article that were referenced during the AfD? A concern is that it's probably not ideal to delete something that's borderline while the relevant SNG is being discussed. But I have to agree nothing in the AfD itself looked like it helps with the GNG. But I find it really (really) unlikely that there aren't sources on this. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- overturn to NC (Addendum: I'm also good with a relist as the sources in the article never got discussed.Hobit (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)). Sources in the article appear to be independent, reliable and non-trivial. Are they good enough for meeting WP:N? That's for the discussion to determine. Both Keep and Delete !voters made mention of those sources, but no one had really any argument than "is not" "is". Even if we discount the arguments about the proposed inclusion guideline, we have an NC outcome both in terms of numbers and strength of argument. Hobit (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The independent sources in the article were only that it had been given a broadcast license. The article had serious COI editing, which caused its head to go above the parapet and serious questions to be asked about notability. As a local area editor, I did try hard to find some, I wanted it to continue despite that editing, but I found none, nor did anyone else. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Erb? Could you point to the part of WP:N that says such an article can't be counted toward WP:N? The article that was deleted didn't seem overly promotional--the existance of COI editing isn't a reason to delete. And [1], which is in the article, predates the license by years and years. So no, they aren't all about them having gotten a broadcast license. And a brief search from there turns up a lot. [2]. Things like [3] and [4] seem quite decent. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now that the article has been temp undeleted and I can see the edit history, it looks like there has been quite a bit of COI editing from someone (presumably within the MKFM organisation) consistently stating that it isn't a community radio station for whatever reason. The confusion here is perhaps because it's a community and a commercial radio station - its FM licence is for community radio, and its wider DAB digital licence is a commercial licence. It is, however, a licensed radio station of some years standing and I agree that an article being subject to COI editing isn't in and of itself grounds for deletion. If MKFM is not notable, is Heart East, which does have its own article but appears to be a regional rebroadcast of a station in London? Flip Format (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No, of course COI editing is not a reason for deletion, I never said it was. To clarify, it was the COI editing that caused me and Fishplater to look at all the citations in the article only to find that almost all were self-referential. In summary, it is not notable. As for Heart East, I agree: propose it for deletion and I will support. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Could it possibly be the case that you are simply not an expert in the field of radio broadcasting and are unable to find sources to improve the article yourself? Why, in that case, does it need to be deleted instead of improved by other editors who do know about broadcasting? Flip Format (talk) 11:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I make no claim to any such expertise. But the fact remains that none of the participants in the AfD found any evidence of notability. Of course if you can produce any new WP:RS material, then we cease to have a problem. Meanwhile I have no doubt that if the article as it stood were submitted today to the AfC process as a new article, it would be dismissed out of hand for failure to meet GNG. Finally let me affirm that as soon as notability can be demonstrated, I will strongly support its (re-)creation. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article temporarily undeleted for DRV (ping Hobit). Daniel (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have an article called Community radio in the United Kingdom, which was actually mentioned in the AfD, and also a Timeline of independent radio in the United Kingdom, which wasn't. The AfD should have considered alternatives to deletion, at least some of which are as obvious as a coal pile in a ballroom, and didn't. Relist as a defective debate.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly it could be included as a section of a larger article. The question is whether it is sufficiently notable to have its own. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it clearly could be included as a section of a larger article, why was this at AfD and why didn't you suggest a merge? Hobit (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - - It was already mentioned in a larger article (Milton Keynes, see above), it didn't need its own article. If someone wants to mention it any other article, then who am I to stop them? If someone wants to recreate it as a redirect, then let them propose that.
    - For better or worse, we have a number of nominators who are using AfD as articles for discussion, explicitly proposing a merge or redirect rather than deletion, Piotrus for instance. I find that discussions started in such an ATD-aware manner tend to invite people to meet in the middle, and I don't think that's a bad thing in the least. Jclemens (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Finding middle ground is important, and conversely, I find criticism of those who propose alternatives to deletion in their AfD comments, including nominations, very unhelpful. Anyway, I want to encourage people to consider suggesting alternatives such as redirects or merges in their AfDs. What's the harm? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, but in this case it would be hard to carry out the selective merge that we need because the article was a redlink. There are also considerations about preserving attribution to think about.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The discussion was close. The keep votes made claims that the subject meets WP:NRADIO but did not explain why this is the case; and as such are very close to WP:ITSNOTABLE. As such, I concur that they were weak and can be disregarded, and those who made them are encouraged to explain why something is notable better. If such an argument could be made here properly, we could consider overturning this and relisting, perhaps. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BCAST: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming." This station is licensed, permanent (inasmuch as recurring five-year licences are permanent) and originates its own programming from its own facilities rather than being a satellite/translator station, and so under that section of WP:BCAST it would be considered notable. I wonder if User:Sammi Brie would appreciate being tagged here to give her views. Flip Format (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the Keep side made no attempt to refute the central argument for deletion, which is that the subject doesn't meet the GNG. Instead they focused on showing that it meets WP:NMEDIA, an essay with no official standing. A recent attempt to promote NMEDIA to guideline status failed in large part because it's overbroad and the radio-specific section would grant notability to almost every radio station. It would make sense to redirect to List of radio stations in the United Kingdom#Community radio stations. Hut 8.5 11:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus: Per reasons above. Whether they're refuted or not, the "keep" votes have merit whatsoever as the "delete" votes. I strongly agree with Jclemens that there's really nothing wrong with using essays that haven't reached the guideline status in explaining why a certain article should be kept or deleted, whether it's WP:FANCRUFT or WP:BCAST or whatever essay. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add, the discussion was relisted thrice and I don't see a need to have it relisted. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Superastig: I second the motion. I believe discarding !keep votes that reference a "non-existent guideline" is a total BS. SBKSPP (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the previous discussion @Fishplater, Spiderone, Jeepday, Whiteguru, Rillington, SportingFlyer, Neutralhomer, Superastig, and SBKSPP: as nom should have done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally ping all participants from the AfD to take part in a DRV, DRV isn't intended to be a repeat of the AfD. Hut 8.5 11:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my mistake, I was not so aware. Though in reality almost all of the discussion above is indeed a rerun of the AfD, not about whether the process was properly carried out or introducing new evidence that was not available for consideration last time (ignoring the WP:other stuff exists arguments). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should stop professing to be an expert on the procedures (I freely admit I'm not) and stop talking down to me and others in this discussion. Flip Format (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Where have I professed to be an expert on the procedures? [for the record, I make no such claim]. Also, show me where you feel that I have 'talked down' to you? Do you mean where you challenged me for my failure to find sources readily available to subject experts, so I invited you to produce an example? I'm still waiting. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already know that DRV isn't intended to be a repeat of the AfD. Every participant from the AfD has the right to share his/her thoughts on the closure and I see nothing wrong with that. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they couldn't. However the nominator certainly isn't expected to ping all the AfD participants, contrary to what John Maynard Friedman claimed above, and it doesn't add much to the discussion. The people who wanted the article kept are going to say that the AfD should be closed as Keep, the people who wanted the article deleted are going to say the AfD should be closed as Delete, and we're back to square one. DRV is best when it can bring outside input. Hut 8.5 16:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I have no expertise or even experience of this process [this is my first AfD nomination; I have also done just one RfD], so forgive my noobie error. I gained the impression that the case was being relitigated (rather than being challenged on the grounds of procedural errors or significant new evidence). So it seemed to make sense to reinvolve those who participated first time as it seemed to me that they might have something new to contribute given the passage of time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question does anyone really feel that the arguments that the sources in the article don't meet the GNG were stronger than the ones that said it did? @Seraphimblade: states that "...no editors refuted the claim that the subject did not pass the GNG". But the claims that the sources in the article were not enough were simply "they aren't enough" and the ones that said they were simply said they were. Seraphimblade, did you evaluate the sources yourself? If not, could you explain how you see the argument in the AfD against the sources in the article meeting the GNG as stronger than the ones that said they were enough? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that the article passes the GNG? The closest I can see to that is "The sources in the article seem reliable" and "I also found a few reliable sources which talk some of the station's programming", which aren't the same thing at all. The Keep comments were all based on WP:BCAST, which is a failed proposal that would make almost all radio stations notable. Hut 8.5 07:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two people claim that the sources are reliable. I don't think they need to cite the GNG directly to make it clear they feel the GNG is met. The second one is "Sources presented above including the ones in the article are reliable enough". Hobit (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG requires a lot more than the existence of reliable sources. Hut 8.5 11:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. But "Doesn't meet the GNG" isn't a lot more clear. And multiple, reliable, indpendent sources is commonly shorted to "reliable sources". I certainly think their arguments are saying they think the GNG is met. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. I suppose we could ask them their intent. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I voted and got pinged and don't really care anymore, but after reviewing, the arguments for keeping were "passes a non-existent guideline," and the arguments against were "fails GNG." I don't know how anyone can argue even for a no consensus in good faith. And please don't ping me, I won't respond, I only logged in to add a specific piece of information but checked why I had been pinged. SportingFlyer T·C 23:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd swear we are reading different AfDs. This one had people saying that the sources in the article met the GNG and one person provided other ones. I'd personally agree the new ones in the AfD were poor, but the ones in the article look just fine. If all mention of the "non-existent guideline" were removed, this could only be closed as NC. even dropping all those keep votes that only referenced said non-existent guideline'. Those poor arguments really shouldn't count as a negative, at most they should be ignored. Hobit (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse - The closer correctly applied the applicable guideline in a situation where, in my stubborn opinion, the guidelines are wrong. I prefer SNGs to GNG, and think that deletion discussions would be more straightforward and cleaner if we didn't apply GNG as a procrustean bed that distorts the subject out of shape. But the community obstinately refused to upgrade the SNG to a real guideline, let alone to make it independent of GNG. So the closer was right, and this illustrates what is wrong with GNG supremacy. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (relist), WP:Supervote. The closer analysed to conclude “delete”, but that analysis was too much his expertise and not enough apparent in the discussion. There were weak votes on both sides, and some more discussion would surely clarify consensus. Experts closing discussions to the bewilderment of non-expert participants is a bad thing. Relist, again. The nominator and User:SportingFlyer made good arguments, but they need more participants to agree with them. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do not overturn to “no consensus”. The discussion was clearly on the side of “delete”, but just needed more refutation of the weak “keep” !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I respectfully disagree with those editors who have said to Overturn and Relist. If the close is overturned, it should be overturned to No Consensus. The AFD has already been relisted three times, which is enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All three relists were pointless comment-free relists. They are a procedural waste of time and a visual distraction. They should be ignored. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a misreading. That fact that the AFD was relisted three times is highly significant data: it tells us that substantial time was made available for different opinions to be registered. That absence of further remarks says that editors concluded that everything that should be said had already been said. It is obvious that we have reached the same point here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  The relists tell us nothing about time beyond what times stamps already have done.
  
  Completely disagree that everything that should have been said was said. Namely, the rebuffing of the many weak !votes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related item It may assist editors in assessing this case to look at User talk:Fishplater#Your submission at Articles for creation: Secklow Sounds (July 24). (Secklow Sounds is the other local community radio station in Milton Keynes.) The AFC rejection was a fair one, with which I agreed. In the context of this discussion, though, how are the cases different? The RS information about each station is essentially the same. So any decision we make here really should explain adequately why MKFM is sufficiently notable but Secklow Sounds is not. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, conversely, hold that the AfC rejection was inappropriate. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC, do not Relist Per above arguments. The discussion has run its course after 3 relists. So, there's no need for a 4th relist since both !keep and !delete votes have good enough arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The AfD is peppered with “meets ABC”, “does not meet DEF”, “fails EFG therefor HIJ doesn’t count”. WP:VAGUEWAVES. The ONLY deeper substance comes from User:Superastig and User:SportingFlyer. Superastig offered six sources, and SportingFlyer refuted them all. User:SBKSPP’ late bland VAGUEWAVE only took the conversation backwards. I agree with the closer’s conclusion, but as it amounts to a 1:1 headbutting, it really needs another editor to engage on the substance. Even the nominator, User:John Maynard Friedman, would have done well to go to the source details. “No evidence of notability” is not quite BEFORE Standard, and “Only citations in the article are for…” demands a response to Superastig’s more sources !vote. If only User:Seraphimblade had !voted instead of closing, the AfD would have been a clear “delete”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even the nominator, User:John Maynard Friedman, would have done well to go to the source details. Which source details? If I (or to be more precise, Google) had found any such details, the question would never have arisen. Others have provided sources in this discussion (not the AFD): if they had done so at the AFD stage, I suspect that the outcome would have been to keep. Quite frankly, when I see unambiguously WP:trivial product-placement articles like List of The Union members being created with only "it needs citations" from the reviewer, I have to wonder why we bother with AFD. Let the weeds grow. Keep. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John,

The specific details of superastig’s six sources, in particular.

As for the nomination statement, I believe that it is better to explicitly state what search you did, how many results you looked at, and a comment on what sort of results they were. It’s not that I mean to criticise your nomination, it’s that in the face of !votes such as “meets WP:NRADIO”, more detail is needed. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I meant to write "I wonder why we bother with GNG").

As I have said multiple time, I have no strong belief that the article should have been deleted – as the station serves my local area, I would be happy to see both it and its competitor included. But is is invidious to reject creation of an article for Secklow Sounds 'because it is NN' but keep MKFM which is just as N – or NN.

I searched via Google for any third-party references and found only the original award of broadcasting licence to both stations. (Surely the AFD stage is the time to raise such questions and for others to validate my results: we all know that Google gives different results to different people at different times.)

Superastig's citations were not presented at the AFD: if they had then maybe the outcome might have been different. It is not for me to judge whether or not they are good enough to overturn the AFD: I have no idea whether or not they are WP:RS. It seems that, within the terms of NRADIO, they are good enough, even if rather tenuous otherwise (to be missed by Google). I suspect that they are a lot more notable than the characters in a minor Marvel Comics franchise.

I presented 'the case for the prosecution', Superastig and others have done likewise for the defence. If fellow editors are waiting for me to withdraw the nomination to bring this saga to a close, then I withdraw it. But it looks like I kicked over a hornet's nest of notability challenges to little-league radio stations so others may be less willing to let it drop. I can't be judge as well as prosecutor. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are strong arguments to delete. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.