Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SixHits Digital Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as no non-trivial, independent sources. Adam Cuerden talk 22:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SixHits Digital Radio

SixHits Digital Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a sparsely-referenced article about an internet radio station whose notability cannot be verified (WP:CORP). Two of the station's presenters, Kevin Coy and Michael (Meic) Young are the main authors of the article. No external press references for SixHits can be easily located. Digital Spy Poster 20:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • keep - we're listed on the Octoshape wiki, we're a fully licensed internet station and if we get on DAB we'll be only the second internet-to-DAB station in the UK; we're the only UK radio station carrying live US baseball; we're a philanthropic organisation giving young people from disaffected backgrounds the chance to get on air - a legal alternative to the scourge of pirate stations. Michaelyoung83 21:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This has been added for deletion for reasons other than the content of the article, the Hitz Radio UK situation. Digital Spy Poster is wasting our time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rysin3 (talk • contribs)
Do you have a policy-based reason to suggest it's kept - something not based on "I don't like the editor who generated the AFD?" --Fredrick day 23:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sixhits Digital Radio is a limited business registered at companies house (06198007), and holds an OFCOM DSPS licence (number DP-111). Kevincoy 21:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC))— Kevincoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment - Ofcom DSPS licences can be obtained on payment of the correct fee by anyone, provided they satisfy certain basic criteria. There isn't any barrier to entry with those licences as there is with FM licences. It isn't an indication that the station is able to broadcast on digital radio platforms. Being a limited company is similarly not proof of notability. [1] Digital Spy Poster 21:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - User:Michaelyoung83 is repeatedly removing the AfD template from the SixHits article, as well as blanking its talk page. Digital Spy Poster 21:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Digital Spy Poster is subjecting a legitimately created and acceptable article to a malicious attack. I am entitled to remove a tag which has no precedence despite DSP's personal vendetta due to his/her/it's apparent personal support of HitzRadioUK, who have critics resident in our company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) 22:09, June 2, 2007— Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • wrong - if you remove the afd tag you are likely to be blocked. --Fredrick day 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

*deletesuper strong delete NN as it currently stands, the sources presented are awful - I would be willing to reconsider if better sources are presented. --Fredrick day 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I'll need to do some more reading before adding a !vote here, but we have serious WP:COI issues. Michaelyoung83 and Kevincoy are employees of this station, and single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article and Hitz Radio UK. Further, accusations are starting to fly, rather than people accepting good faith. I suggest everyone WP:CHILLOUT and debate this calmly. -- Kesh 22:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Defence I have used Wikipedia before for other edits under the username [[Mocyoung [2]]] but a defective memory and a change of email address left me without a password.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) 22:38, June 2, 2007
      • Thanks for clarifying that. Also, please remember to sign your comments with four ~ signs! -- Kesh 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Internet radio stations are notable if they can demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence. CBC Radio Three and WOXY, for instance, are clearly notable, but your own personal Peercast stream with three listeners is not.
Our primary consideration here should be notability of this station and verifiability of such. -- Kesh 22:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
does it exist? yes it does. Does it have a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence - I'd say not. all of the mentions of this station seem to self-generated and the usual NN collection of forum postings. --Fredrick day 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Our cultural notability is based on three unique premises. One: we are the only UK based radio station broadcasting regular live baseball. As such, we are serving an audience of fans not previously served by any British radio broadcaster. This has already been referenced on Channel Five [[3]] and has the support of 8 IL clubs, the media director of MiLB and the president of the International League. Two: we are a fully licensed internet radio station. In the age of Shoutcast and various other online streaming companies, anyone can set up an illegal station. We have spent money and put effort into obtaining all the necessary licenses we need. We also have taken the first step into becoming only the second UK internet station to move onto the DAB platform, with a second step deep in planning and preparation mode. Three: in the face of a closed media run by corporations, and also tower-block and underground pirate radio stations, which allegedly serve audiences ostracised from society, we give the ordinary talented young men and women of the UK the opportunity to broadcast on a professionally run, regulated radio station from their own houses and/or studios. This includes adhering to Ofcom Codes of Conduct and similar regulations. Therefore we are providing a service in teaching young people the ins and outs of radio broadcasting, whilst introducing them to the world of media in a developing and nurturing manner.
This is the crux of our argument for the keeping of our entry. If necessary, I will add all the relevant details to the article that may be needed for its survival. With regard to external sources, it's not like we've been trying. We have issued regular press releases, and it is obvious from our baseball and football projects that communications with external individuals and organisations have paid off, as well as providers of our competition prizes. This is a young but alive and breathing radio station which has a lot to offer and, given the chance, a lot to prove. Therefore, as an individual and not as an employee, I believe it merits inclusion. Michaelyoung83 22:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
show don't tell - this is really really simple - no matter how many posts you make to this AFD unless multiple independent sources are added to the article, it will be deleted - it's that simple. If you are unable to supply such sources, tell us now and save us all the trouble. Your licence just proves you exist, it does not prove you are notable. The fact that you have plans to go onto DAB does not prove you are notable - actually being on DAB might, the fact that you think are doing something wonderful by helping young people does not prove are you notable. Forget any of the following as sources - press releases and forum posts. so it's not "if necessary" it is "this is ABSOLUTELY" necessary - forget press releases and forum posts as sources, they don't cut it - if you (the organisation) wrote it - it doesn't cut it. Multiple independent sources. --Fredrick day 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Channel Five mention isn't really an independent source. It's just an email being read out by a presenter. If I phoned a radio station, requested a song and had my name read out on air, I wouldn't then be able to start a Wikipedia article about myself using a recording of the mention as proof of notability. Digital Spy Poster 23:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Very Very Weak Keep There is some (very minor) notability through the baseball deal, and it seems possible the station may become more notable. It's a poor article, probably violating WP:COI, but doesn't do substantial harm and might be useful as a basis for a better article in the future. Barnabypage 00:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreement - this article is being updated on an ongoing basis - edits were made today to flesh out the content and improve its informative nature. Speedy deletion is not necessary. It does not do harm (as the HitzRadioUK one may do), nor has it attracted any major attention before tonight, due to DSP's persistent attempts to get rid of it. An apparently over-zealous Wikipedia fascist who hides behind an anonymous name who rightly is suspected of being a sympathiser to a station which is the complete antithesis of ours, has somehow managed to force an article which has had no complaints about it whatsoever in the time it has been online into becoming a debated topic. Leave it alone, give us time to flesh it out, and it will earn its notability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelyoung83 (talk • contribs) 00:49, June 3, 2007
  • Delete - no apparent notability, and all the sources quoted appear to be either of the blog/youtube type or listings in directories which merely state this station exists. Existence does not equal notability. If it gets the DAB licence, and is covered by suitable reliable sources, it may obtain notability in the futur. For now, sorry, it is quite a way off. - fchd 07:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - DAB licence number DP-111 is held by Sixhits Digital Radio Limited. DP-111 Licence page Kevincoy 09:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Getting a DAB license is a matter of paying a fee - it means nothing at all. Actually broadcasting on DAB would. --Fredrick day 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Which is what the company is in the process of doing. Launching an independent station, onto a corporately owned Multiplex is not something which can be done overnight. The mere fact that we are in talks to gain carriage on one of two multiplex's with GCAP Now Digital is in itself something which we feel particularly proud of. Just out of interest, and in the spirit of open debate, what exactly is classified as proof of "Notability"? Kevincoy 09:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Multiple independent references in sources such as those mentioned in WP:RS - so national newspapers, Magazines etc (note - someone reading out an email you sent them would not pass mustard). Blog posts, listings and forum posts don't cut it. I think I've mentioned this three? times now? --Fredrick day 09:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with Barnabypage, there is room for improvement in the article, and given time and space to do so, will be achieved. The ultimate issue here appears to me that the deletion of this page has only come about because the author of another questioned article was assumed (and still is) to be connected with this station. This is false. Because of this, the article about Sixhits Digital Radio is in jepoardy. As was mentioned before by Kesh for us to prove notability, the station has to "demonstrate a clear and verifiable cultural notability or influence". It has most certainly done this with its prospectus, annex to DP-111, acquisition of US baseball coverage, live every night for the first time on UK radio, other sports projects, and the fact that young poeple, who would not necessarily get the opportunity to learn about broadcasting in such a hands on way, now have that chance (on a full time station, not taking anything away from RSL's). The difference between this and other online stations which are licensed, is our ability to be able to move forward from broadcasting via the internet, to launch onto the DAB platform, and with tentative discussions expected to start early next week regarding a possible trial broadcast on BSkyB's Digital Satellite platform. All of this clearly shows the station has notability. Agreed, external links to articles elsewhere about the station are lacking, but this is something that can only be addressed over time, and not something that can be magic'ed up overnight. From my personal opinion, instead of attacking the page, which is an entry intended to be informative and a reference tool, why not help in editing it so that it fulfils everyone's personal views on what is and what isn't notable? Kevincoy 10:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your posts - all you seem to saying is "no sources exist", AFD isn't a vote, if proper sources are not added to the article because they don't exist, then neither will the article. Discussion of X,Y and Z that might happen in the future mean nothing. Oh and stop attacking the editor who created the AFD, personal attacks weaken your case and can lead to blocks. --Fredrick day 10:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It has most certainly done this with its prospectus, annex to DP-111, acquisition of US baseball coverage, live every night for the first time on UK radio, other sports projects, and the fact that young poeple, who would not necessarily get the opportunity to learn about broadcasting in such a hands on way, now have that chance (on a full time station, not taking anything away from RSL's).
Unfortunately, none of these qualify as reliable sources to indicate notability of the subject. It's not a matter of "everyone's personal views" on notability, it's Wikipedia's rules. If you can't provide verifiable sources to prove notability of the subject, the article is to be deleted. It can't be improved if you can't satisfy those three rules. -- Kesh 16:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The page references an entity which does exist and provides an informative reference of it's origins. The basis for removal seems to be more personally based than anything else. There must be thousands of entries on Wikipedia that would all seem to fall within the boundaries that are described for it's deletion which would lead one to question why this one has been chosen for deletion. Why are no suggestions being made for it's continued inclusion? JfK-UK 09:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)users only edit is to this AFD --Fredrick day 09:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC) (UTC)Is that relevant to the validity of the article? JfK-UK 16:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Notice Of Further Listing By External Source MediaUK, an independent media directory, has listed SixHits inamongst its UK radio station listings. [4] This has now been added to the SH Wikipedia page.
means nothing - it's a listing service (which is not classed as a suitable source) and is editable by anyone. Let's try this again multiple independent sources. --Fredrick day 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
actually it's not editable by anyone, it's an independent company run by James Cridland and he is the one who approves the details put out on it. Certain criteria have to be fulfilled and not every radio station is added willy nilly. Add this to our Octoshape listing and our VirtualRadio listing and that is three separate external independent sources of the radio station.

Wrong wrong wrong - those still just prove that the station exists, that's it - we all accept the station exists, we don't accept it's notable. Listings do not provide notablity - they provide evidence that something exists and do you really think you are the first person to try and use MediaUK? the first NN radio station to roll up at wikipedia? no and no. I think I will have to change to strong delete - the fact that people connected to the station can only provide weak and poor sources says it all really. --Fredrick day 21:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for now. No media coverage of this, only directory entries, affiliates press releases and self-promotion show up on a google search. Yes, it's a real radio station. No, not all radio stations are notable. We need to see third party reliable sources about this station before an article can be written. Of course, if the statement about switching to DAB broadcasting is correct, there will undoubtedly be some coverage when this occurs, and the article can be reinstated then. JulesH 11:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I'd be in support of the reinstatement of the article if the DAB broadcast goes ahead. Until then, it's really just another internet stream. For what it's worth, I think it's a pretty professional-looking operation as far as internet stations go, but it's really not notable enough for Wikipedia. Digital Spy Poster 20:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - sources verify that the station ecists, but that isn't in doubt. Needs independent coverage where it is the primary focus of the article from the press. That may occur if and when they go DAB, so no prejudice against recreation when notability is achieved. -- Whpq 21:45, 6 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.