Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBFR (pirate radio) (2nd nomination)

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 keep.

talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

KBFR (pirate radio)

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

Delete This article is incredibly poorly written. The external links listed in the article are not all active. Of those that are, several of them point to various social media accounts (e.g. twitter account) which are no longer active. There are absolutely no inline citations in the entire article. The article needs a complete rewrite in order to comply with both Wikipedia standards as well as to be coherent in general. The article is clearly written as a personal opinion, at one point criticizing the FCC of using "Gestapo tactics." A box calling for additional citations and verification has been active since 2007 and another box calls for a complete rewrite since the beginning of 2009. Thus, the article has been in serious trouble for over just about four to five years now. It is apparent that there is no interest in this article and that it will not be fixed any time in the future, it needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhakan (talk • contribs) 08:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep This article reflects a very real social phenomenon (Pirate Radio) and is more relevant today than ever with the advent of Low Power FM (LPFM) kicking into gear Oct. of 2013. The history of why we GOT LPFM come from pirate radio, such as KBFR. The Prometheus Group (who have been the ones that are making LPFM possible in the US) is made up of people that started as pirate radio operators just like KBFR. Also keep in mind that pirate radio is BY THE PEOPLE.. it is not polished or sophisticated. "Badly written" is a subjective idea IF the content is highly valuable (which this content is). Lastly, I know one of the original founders of this station and will ask him to look at and update links in this article to improve it's overall quality. Possibly, he can also update/cleanup the text of the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.102.183 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Malformed nomination and discussion moved from previous Afd discussion page[1] Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Contrary to the anon IP's assertion above, the fact that

notability

of that specific station in its own right. Conventionally licensed radio stations are a different story, but that's because the relevant broadcast regulator (FCC, CRTC, OFCOM, etc.) issues publicly accessible licensing documents which count as reliable sources — it is not because either class of radio station is automatically entitled to an article just because it exists.

In its current form, this article is very poorly referenced and makes no credible claim of notability; rather, it claims existence and then bogs down in deep trivia of the type that wouldn't warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article even if this were a real licensed radio station. Accordingly, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and the article makes no claim of notability, just existence. Supplied references are either dead links, dont mention this pirate radio station at all, or mention it only in passing. Same of any other references I was able to find, either go to self-published blogs, or mention the subject of this article only in passing. Changing my !vote to week keep. I'd still prefer to see a reference other than local weekly newspaper. If this is such a strong example of a pirate radio station, has it received any attention from outside the area? Worth noting that the notability of the subject of pirate radio is not at issue here at all, this particular station is. RadioFan (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as subject is the focus of multiple in-depth articles in multiple reliable third-party sources over a sustained period. These include this 2001 cover story from Boulder Weekly, this 2002 Boulder Weekly profile, and this 2008 article in Westword. Does the article need a lot of work? Heck yes, but AfD is not cleanup. (Pardon me for repeating myself from the original AfD but the same strong sources are still available and the basic policies about notability have not changed.) - Dravecky (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other sources than the ones Dravecky lists can be found, as the comment in the first nomination shows. Cirt, who is not one of those admins who show up from time to time to Keep something that they are interested in, but rather a steady deletor of more articles than he keeps, saw fit to close this Keep two years ago. Anarchangel (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dravecky.
FurrySings (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2013 (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.