Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radyo Kabayan

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. Despite the substantial protests of the article's creator I am satisfied that there is a clear consensus to delete here. I note that the creator is very passionate and that WP:COI issues have been raised, however the concerns about a lack of reliable sources and a lack of evidence of notability raised by editors are what I am closing based upon here. KaisaL (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radyo Kabayan

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

This is a non-notable internet radio station based in Philippines. There are no reliable secondary sources to verify the information. In addition, there is nothing to show that the radio station is notable either. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Fails GNG, WP:PROMO. CSD requested and declined. This article was (apparently) prodded, then DRVed by the creator, who is an SPA. The only edits made in two years are to this article. The article creator is WP:NOTHERE, and there is a strong likelihood that he will recreate the article if it is deleted, and seems to not be interested in following policies. MSJapan (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to salt the title. It has never been recreated and if the article is recreated substantially similar then it can be deleted G4. -- GB fan 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I was the one who PRODed this article but, as what has been told here, it was restored per the creator's request. Sixth o f March 21:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please Do Not Delete - Hello all, why you would like to delete the article? Radyo Kabayan is a valid Wikipedia article and have no issues on it since August 2014 the time it was created. I am not the owner of Radyo Kabayan nor a DJ or staff of Radyo Kabayan. First let me quote Wiki editor GB fan (talk) said as he/she decline the Speedy Deletion of the article by MSJapan,

"I can see how if you take all the evidence you can surmise that Jagan21 is Francis Ray Cecilio. There are other possibilities though. It could be someone who is a fan of the station and learned about Francis Ray Cecilio's back story that way and created the page. As far as the uploading of the logo, I have seen many images that editor's have uploaded claiming it is their own work, but with a little searching it is found on the internet attributed to someone and the uploader just took the easy answer.Looking at A11 it requires a plain indication that the article creator is the person who made/coined/created it or someone they personally know. There is no plain indication that Jagan21 is Francis Ray Cecilio or that they personally know Francis Ray Cecilio."

GB fan is correct that I'm not related to Radyo Kabayan or the founder of Radyo Kabayan but I know the history of Radyo Kabayan because I am an avid listener and a fan of Radyo Kabayan and for us Overseas Filipino Workers or OFWs, Radyo Kabayan is notable or important for us because through Radyo Kabayan we feel at home eventhough we are very far away in our homeland Philippines. Radyo Kabayan is not a bogus internet radio station. It is an online radio company under the umbrella of FRMC Business Ventures a duly registered company in the Philippines. Radyo Kabayan also has an official website www.radyokabayan.org, which is not created on some free website online maker. It has also an official iOS and Android app and last but not the least it has a Facebook group and fanfage wherein we Overseas Filipino Workers or OFWs around the world met online. So I am hoping for all your kind consideration not delete the Wikipedia article Radyo Kabayan. Thank you and have a good day to all... Jagan21 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I accept that Jagan21 made this article in good faith, and reject WP:NOTHERE in this scenario, but it does appear that Jagan21 is currently unaware of Wikipedia's notability requirements. Unfortunately, merely being professional, merely having fans, merely existing is not sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. The requirement is that it be reported on by reliable secondary sources, independent from the subject. This might be a review, or a newspaper article, or a TV mention, but having a website and having fans are not enough. Because KBYN here lacks this secondary sources, we do have to delete the article until such time that it achieves 3rd party notability. Fieari (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Please Do Not Delete~~ - Hello Fieari, if you are asking for notability of the article, I can give you a reliable sources, all were found online or in the internet that Radyo Kabayan is really a valid article. You've mention about a review, I will give you a review of Radyo Kabayan Official App in Google Play Store. Remember this source is entirely independent of the subject being covered because we're talking about App and please do remember also "Google Play" or "Google" itself is a reliable and verifiable source. No doubt about it. Right? You can find it HERE the reviews. And another one, Radyo Kabayan is listed in TuneIn Radio which is a reliable online radio streaming website based in San Francisco, California. Here is the LINK. You can also check that Radyo Kabayan has a lot of followers in TuneIn Radio. And also Radyo kabayan have a good reviews on AMFMph.com which is a reliable sources of Philippine based AM, FM and Internet Radio Stations. Here is the LINK. For the reviews just scroll down below the website. So that's why I did not hesitate to make a Wikipedia article of Radyo Kabayan because in line with Wiki Your first article, I know Radyo Kabayan demonstrate the notability of the article's subject matter and no doubt about it, it is from reliable published sources. Thank you and have a good day to all... Jagan21 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Jagan21-- I struck through your second "please do not delete" vote. You can only vote once. Also, please sign yor posts properly by using four tiles in a row: ~~~~. See WP:SIGNATURE if you are not familiar as to how to do this.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jagan21. Before you go on, we need to define some terms together. Here at Wikipedia, we sometimes use technical jargon specific to our encyclopedia, and these jargon terms may not necessarily mesh entirely with typical English use. The first term to define is "reliable". Regardless of the English definition, the Wikipedia meaning of "reliable" is "possessing an exclusionary critical review process". Exclusionary means that the source cannot simply accept all contributions provided to it, even if it has a process for removing contributions later. (Note that yes, this means Wikipedia is itself not "reliable" by our definition!). Critical review means that a human being other than the author, in a position of authority, must have looked at the content and compared it to criteria based on widely accepted standards, such as journalistic standards or academic standards. Taken in whole, this definition of reliable excludes all "user generated content" such as google play reviews.

The second word we need to define is "routine", because notability establishment cannot come from "routine" coverage. Routine coverage is anything that basically says, "this thing exists", and nothing more. For people, routine coverage is birth and death announcements, wedding announcements, and similar such things. For businesses, routine coverage is appearance in lists of all business of a particular type, such as your tunein.com link. This is expressly excluded from our notability criteria.

The third term we need to define is "independent from the subject". This means that the information used to establish notability cannot be published by the subject of the article, or by anyone or any organization directly related with the subject of the article. Thus, we cannot look at reviews posted by KBYN itself to establish notability for it.

I'm sorry that it turns out this way, but unless a source such as a print newspaper, a notable (again, using our definition of notable!) magazine, a review organization with an exclusionary editorial staff, television news program, or other similar source has a detailed writeup about this internet radio station, we cannot include it in Wikipedia. Fieari (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fieari. I'm so sorry to say that I don't agree that Radyo Kabayan reviews on Google Play is not a notable one and the Google Play reviews in general. Remember, Google Play has a strict Developer Policy if the content is not acceptable, they will removed the app less than 72 hours without hesitation. Do you know that Google Play has always an editor that look up whenever there's a change of content and I can say, that it is in line of what you called meaning of "reliable" which is "possessing an exclusionary critical review process". We are talking here reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and that would fit Google Play reviews.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia SHOULD NOT HAVE ARTICLE ON IT."

That's it. Thank you and have a good day Fieari... Jagan21 (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jagan21. Google play's removal policy is not an editorial review, nor is it exclusionary. If you submit a review to google play, it shows up immediately, without it having been looked at by any paid employee of google play. If someone challenges a review on google play, it is reviewed on the criteria of legality and clear harassment, not on the criteria of writing quality, factualness, structure, or importance. No review was ever rejected from google play because "that thing is simply not of interest to our readers". It is not EXCLUSIONARY. Thus, it is not reliable. Fieari (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fieari. I cannot argue anymore on what you said that ALL "user generated content" is not reliable but again I'm sorry to say that I cannot agree with you. Please do remember of what you called "editorial review" especially through online is also called a User generated content. For me. I would prefer the too many people who do the reviews (like the Google Play reviews) rather than only a single person review which is for me a biased one which does not conform what you said quality and factualness writing. Aside from that "user generated content" is not mention on Wikipedia:Notability guideline which is also misleading for me. I just understand as long the reviews, the mentions, the articles about the subject is from a reliable and verifiable sources such as Google Play or Google itself, it is already notable and have no arguments on it. This is very interesting, in fact, Wikipedia:Notability estates 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. So, I leave with you to decide the fate of Radyo Kabayan Wikipedia article after two years of existence with no issues or whatsoever. I have no power. I'm just a damn Wikipedia contributor only and happened to be one of too many Filipino fanatics of Radyo Kabayan online radio and I want to thank you also that you never believe that I'm WP:NOTHERE unlike the two editor accusations. Thank you for your time and again have a good day to you Fieari... Jagan21 (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have looked for sources to support this article and found none. The radio station does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. -- GB fan 23:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inadequarte sources in article. Search does not turn up sources. Fails notability tests.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2016 (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.