Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKFM

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2021 September 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. While numerically this may look closer to a "no consensus" with a slight delete margin, the "keep" arguments do not generally address or refute the assertion that the subject fails the GNG. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MKFM

[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 evidence of notability, nor is there likely to be, given its very limited broadcast range (see Community radio in the United Kingdom). Only citations in the article are for its award of broadcast licence. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not blatant advertising but has been routinely edited to mislead. The topic's website is majority banner ads and clickbait. Fishplater (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG in the article nor in my search for references. Jeepday (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage to meet WP:GNG. Impeeriumalo (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems to meet WP:NRADIO. Community radio in the United Kingdom lists this community radio station as broadcasting more than one local DAB multiplex: DAB in Herts, Beds and Bucks (10D) --Whiteguru (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NRADIO although more information about the output of the station needs to be added as well as additional independent references. Rillington (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NRADIO and added an extra reference to assist.Warren (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG, and WP:NRADIO is not a SNG exempt from meeting GNG (very few are.) I do not think the references in the article are independent or reliable enough to show notability, and a BEFORE search brings up no sources which would help save the article. SportingFlyer T·C 14:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article seem reliable. I also found a few reliable sources which talk some of the station's programming: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. It was granted a full-time license last 2015. It was nominated as one of the Most Charitable Businesses at the annual MK Inspirational Awards last 2017. That said, along with the reasons above, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are either not reliable/independent (first two) or not significant coverage (last two). Furthermore, WP:BCAST is not a notability guideline exempted from needing to meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BCAST per above arguments. Sources presented above including the ones in the article are reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Peter303x (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: from the discussion above, it seems clear that the case for this station, like that for thousands of other minor league, limited locality counterparts, stands or falls not on its own merits but on whether WP:BCAST is a policy or still just an essay. So I suggest that this debate needs to be escalated to a forum where that more fundamental question can be debated. Where is that forum? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it's just an essay, and these stations must still meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. I think an RfC is being teed up somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 19 June 2021 (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.