Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverclyde Radio

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. Davewild (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inverclyde Radio

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

I don't see anything that suggests notability as per Wikipedia:Notability (web) for this local news site. Of the three sources given, one is the site itself and the other two are about other subjects and only mention Inverclyde Radio in passing. I've done some searching, but I can't find any in-depth coverage in third-party sources. Squinge (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 15:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a brand new user to Wikipedia, I have not had a chance to learn about the system so if this is the wrong way to respond, I do apologise. I did not create the Inverclyde Radio page and only came across it the other day. I have edited elements on the page as I am a Director of Inverclyde Radio. I will have to take time to understand the use of Wikipedia. As a media outlet in its own right, Inverclyde Radio seldom has any articles supporting us in other media. W G Stewart (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. The problem here is one of notability, as explained by Wikipedia's policy at Wikipedia:Notability. There are various guidelines regarding all sorts of individual subjects, but the "General notability guideline" as explained there says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" - and goes on to explain in more detail. If, as you say, Inverclyde Radio seldom has any articles writing about it in other media, then it might unfortunately just not be sufficiently notable for its own Wikipedia article. Squinge (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few bits of info and some references to the article. I guess the station got more coverage in a former incarnation, as Inverclyde FM. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had wondered that some further information might turn up to indicate notability, but further searching did not reveal the sort of significant coverage need to establish notability by WP:COMPANY as it lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and doesn't have general notability established using the criteria in WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2015 (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.