Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3XX

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 October 29.
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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3XX

3XX is not notable (Mixing up renewal dates isn't notable) and can't find any reliable sources for 3XX. Bidgee (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failure of WP:N. Movingboxes (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article had a large removal of content [1]. Licensed broadcast radio stations are presumed notable and notability does not expire. I will check this out further. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noted the removed content before marking it for deletion but it's unsourced content which would have been removed anyway. I can start up a radio station tomorrow and just because it's licensed doesn't make it notable. 3XX was licensed as a narrowcast (Narrowband Area Service - ACMA and it will point out that 1611 is off the dial and is cheap since not everyone can pick it up) radio station and not a broadcast radio station. Bidgee (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3XX was a reasonable sized narrowcaster in Melbourne's community and does deserve to have a small detail about it's history in place on the Wikipedia community. As for sources of it's article, are the existing website cached on the wayback machine, and current articles about it's closure on mediaspy and jocksjournal not enough information? Ontheradionetau (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.110.131 (talk) [reply]

Those (The former website, Mediaspy and Jocks Journal) are not reliable sources. 3XX was not a well known broadcaster if it was there would have been a news story about it starting up and closing down but nothing shows up on Google News. Bidgee (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If, in fact, this was a licensed broadcast station in Australia, it is notable. The article needs references, but the subject is notable. --Winger84 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it was licensed since 2002 (which the article claims but doesn't back-up) doesn't make it notable. Also I've found nothing on http://www.acma.gov.au about this station. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Gene93k's comment above, licensed broadcast stations are presumed notable and notability does not expire. --Winger84 (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding this station listed in either the list of licensed commercial stations or the list of open narrowcasting services. The closest match in those lists is 'AM 1611' but that station is licensed to Albany in Western Australia, a long way away from what is described in the article. Unless some evidence that this station was licensed can be located, it cant enjoy the benefit that licensed stations receive in receiving presumed notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise but I can't agree that a licence automatically confers notability. Taking a cause vs effect argument I'd suggest most stations of notability in fact have licenses, but not the other way around. The example of 3XX seems to prove the point, in that yes, it presumably satisfied the requirements to gain a license, but subsequently endured an anonymous existence which attracted no coverage from significant secondary sources. Murtoa (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a long established consensus that licenses stations are considered notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment ... which, politely, I'm challenging. If a group received a licence and operated a station for say, a month, would it be notable? I'm not meaning to be silly or trivialising, but this seems to be an instance where the consensus, irrespective of how long it's been in place, seems very much open to challenge. Murtoa (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Since notability is not temporary, it does not matter how long ago the station was notable nor for how long. - Dravecky (talk) 10:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment ... and in my view it's never been notable, irrespective of licensing considerations. Murtoa (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the presumption that merely having a licence makes a radio station notable aside (and I would really strongly challenge and dispute such a presumption), this defunct station seems to have picked up no coverage in any reliable sources as far as I can tell (and minimal coverage even as far as directories, forums and the like go). The fact that the licence can't even be easily verified would indicate to me that this article has serious WP:N and WP:V issues. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:27, 22 August 2008 (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.