Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Radio Pop

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 prejudice against re-creating as a redirect as proposed by power~enwiki if somebody manages to straighten out the name. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

East Radio Pop

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — we do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 11:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Bearcat. We don't know the call-sign, the website link doesn't work and there are no other references, and the two-sentence article says that it actually has a different name (Radio Shanghai). I think [1] is their current website, which calls it "Pop Music Radio 101.7". No prejudice against re-creation under the correct name once sourcing that verifies the station's name and ITU code is found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think zh:動感101 is the zhwiki article on this station. No sources nor English name on that page, though. Google translate gives "Dynamic 101". If the closer can straighten out the name, a rename + Redirect to Shanghai Media Group would be better than straight deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced, throwaway text per nomination and per Bearcat's reasoning on WP:BROADCAST. -The Gnome (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2018 (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.