Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2PR FM

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. No evidence of notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2PR FM

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Internet "radio" station of dubious notability. There are a few refs in the article, but these are mainly from the station's own site. Those that aren't are more about the station's creator, who is blind and has Asperger's syndrome. The callsign used is not official and seems to have been chosen by the station owner. A google search finds very little that isn't generated from the station's website AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few thoughts on this topic. First, however, I must debate the usage of the iverted commas around the word "radio" by the user AussieLegend. Please forgive me if I am mistaken, however, this reads to me like AussieLegend does not believe that internet radio is truly radio. Maybe it's not radio but Wikipedia has an article on the subject as well as a list of internet radio stations. When editing an article people are supposed to keep personal opinions out of it as humanely possible. Wehter or not internet radio is truly radio is a debate for the aforementioned article on internet radio.

Whilst I agree that there are only a few references in the article, most of which link directly to the site the article is about, I have checked the artciles of three other radio stations, so far, all from the same area, Sydney, all of which contain only a few references, the majority of which link back either to the web-site of the station or to a web-site owned by the station's parent company. Does this also make the stations of dubious notability and should thus be nominated for deletion? The stations in question are Mix 106.5, 101.7 WSFM and Edge 96.1. KatCassidy (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion has nothing to do with it, although my engineering specialty is radio and communications. Internet "radio" is not radio. End of story. As an engineer I can't give credibility to a misuse of "radio", any more than I can support "mtr" as an abbreviation for metre. As for the other articles, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see where you are coming from with "radio" vs "internet 'radio'" which is also known as "webcasting" - no argument there. Would the "Other Stuff Exists" rule apply for placing this article into the catergory of "Internet Radio Stations"? Should the articles regarding internet radio be renamed "webcasting"? Or should I take that up on the talk page of those articles? (Please note: I have a bad tendency to sound like I am being sarcastic when I'm not so if any of my questions come across as sarcastic please accept my apologies as they are not intended to be so) KatCassidy (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was wondering why the 2PR FM article is being targeted for deletion, as I noticed the sources from the bottom were from major newspapers like the ZD Net, Penrith Press, and the St. George Leader. I'm just rather curious as for example when checking WSFM 101.7s article, it only has two references, both of which are from the station site itself, and the other from an announcers blog. On the other hand with 2PR FM, the last four links on the bottom were these:

When noting one of the opinions above as "net radio is not real radio", isn't this an opinion, and aren't the above four sources good enough to make this a notable article in it's own right? Whitewater111 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)— Whitewater111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Further to my comments above, I've just checked the last two references out of the three given on WSFM's article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101.7_WSFM

and they both point to the WSFM website. The first link above, pointers to a Antenna technical sight, which I'm not sure of the credibility of? Can anyone please elaborate on this first reference? many thanks Whitewater111 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)— Whitewater111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Firstly "net radio is not real radio" is not an opinion, it's a technical fact. Net "radio" is more analogous to a telephone. Secondly, the 101.7 WSFM article is irrelevant here. A comparison with that article falls right into WP:OTHERSTUFF. As for the references, this was addressed in the nomination rationale. The first and fourth references are from the same local newspapers, printed one day apart. The fourth reference in particular has a strong focus on the owner and his medical conditions; the article is more about him than his webcast. Together the citations do not constitute "significant" coverage. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In your reply, you note that the first and fourth links were one day apart. Don't you think the fact that the station got two articles over two days is "significant" coverage? And also your argument keeps homing back onto the difference between internet radio and real radio. So the basis of your argument is a technical one, which I agree with, but based on this it is a technicality, rather then a notability issue. What I understand here is, Apple and PCs are two totally different computer systems, but your noting Apple is not notable because it is technically different, and has a smaller market share. On this I would feel that a source citation notation for the article would be more appropriate then a deletion. You also note that one of the articles is more about his handicaps then the net station, I would assume that is why the station is notable, because it was established by someone who had severe disabilities Whitewater111 (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)— Whitewater111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Two articles in a local community newspaper is not significant coverage. WP:GNG says that ""significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The fourth reference addresses Mark Boerebach directly, with 2PR FM as a side issue. Notability is not inherited. Just because Mark Boerebach may be notable (that's an issue for another AfD) doesn't mean that 2PR FM is. As for my argument "homing back onto the difference between internet radio and real radio", that's not at all correct. You asked a question and I answered it. It is you who is homing. The fact that it's not real radio is not directly relevant to its nomination. However, it was important to note that this is not a real radio station because the callsign misleadingly implies it is. Callsigns are allocated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, not individuals. The "FM" component of the callsign is grossly misleading as "FM" is reserved for radio stations that transmit in the FM broadcast band using frequency modulation, which is certainly not the case with 2PR FM, which web-casts over the internet using digitised audio. Your Apple/PC analogy is so severely flawed it's not worth discussing, since the technical differences have nothing to do with notability and, while Apples and PCs are both types of computers, 101.7 WSFM and 2PR FM are not both radio stations. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: general references given for article appear to be mostly the topic's own website and PR, and some blank WebCite pages. {{find}} turns up only vestigial third party coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough independent coverage in reliable, secondary sources. SnottyWong ^chat 17:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the references seem to just be about Mark Boerebach. The station existed for years before he joined it. Did it get any mention for any of its previous names? Dream Focus 15:53, 7 December 2010 (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.