- Andhow.FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not see proof this station is licensed. In New Zealand, they do not need to be licensed for limited Low Power FM such as this station. Any layman can literally set one up for pennies.
The article is not noteworthy, nor is it verifiable, nor does it pass neutral point of view standards in my opinion. It clearly fails to pass WP:BCAST, WP:GNG, WP:WEB, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:ORG. By allowing this to stay, you are opening yourselves up for anyone that wants to use Wikipedia for free advertising promotion of any non-notable radio station or internet radio project, a project most layman can set up in a matter of hours.
It is my understanding that Wikipedia is not a free advertising solution. I work in the industry and it only takes 40 bucks a month to have a registered FM station such as this one. That says nothing of notability, it says you have 40 bucks to spend, and in NZ you do not need a license to operate at very low levels such as this station does.
The references are not sufficient to pass WP:A7 in my opinion. There are no reliable secondary sources. The articles linked go to the same canned write up, links to promotional unverified online news sources that will print anything anyone sends them. They are not reliable resources, nor is the unverified promotional interview. Everything else I see online for this station is from websites where you submit your own unverified information, or from web pages made by whoever is running this station and can be set up by most layman in one day. There are websites for listing/advertising of this type of hobby radio station, Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue.
Many claims made in the article are highly questionable or completely false. Requesting from a library is nothing like Pandora Radio or Spotify internet radio. That is entirely misleading and a false claim. Porirua has a population of barely 53000. So we are to believe that one fifth of the residents there listen to this station that has severely limited local transmission capability and works out of a personal residence? When I looked initially, the station had one listener, when I checked just now, it had 3. Where are the other claimed 19999 online listeners? That is an unverified claim and when I went to verify it, the claim proved false which says this article is not written from a neutral point of view as per Wikipedia standards.
Quote from one of the unverified resources, "While most of his listeners are based in America, Europe and Asia..." So since there are really only 1 to 3 internet listeners at a time when actually verified, and those make up the bulk of them, this station, I feel, does not in any way meet Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vander Wallace (talk • contribs) 12:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- "In New Zealand residents are allowed to broadcast license free at a maximum of 1 watt EIRP in the FM guardbands from 87.6 to 88.3 and from 106.7 to 107.7 MHz under a General User Radio License (GURL) issued by Radio Spectrum Management which is managed by the Ministry of Economic Development. "
- "Low Power FM, or LPFM is a form of FM Broadcasting that uses a low amount of energy to broadcast a signal that does not travel very far. FM, or frequency modulation radio is often transmitted on a higher frequency than AM radio. Because of the low power usage and short range, LPFM is often seen as a niche radio station that plays things that relate more to the small surrounding community." Vander Wallace (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Keep - Rebuttal and defence of article
- In reference to WP:WEB, WP:GNG, WP:A7 & WP:V, the article is verifiable based on facts listed in the 2 printed newspaper articles KapiMana News & CityLife News & 1 radio interview with NZ state broadcaster Radio New Zealand, not "promotional unverified online news sources" as you claim. These are all highly respected & reliable sources of news in New Zealand. This claim "websites where you submit your own unverified information, or from web pages made by whoever is running this station and can be set up by most layman in one day" is completely false and unsubstantiated. The listing in the New Zealand LFPM Radio Network database (which is verified by the NZ LPFM society) & Radio Heritage NZ are not self-maintained. All facts in the article are referenced at the bottom of the article from interviews in the specified reference section. Broadcasting statistics (streaming) are based on stats in the studio and they do number approximately 20,000 listeners a month. FM statistics are based on a FM broadcasting prediction map produced by the NZ LPFM society and reflect the broadcast listener reach of the station's broadcast capability. In reference to WP:GNG, the station supports the local community of the Northern Porirua suburbs and are quite active in supporting local charities, as well as have been an internet broadcaster for over 13 years. The station is operated out of a full, built-for-purpose studio facility. As for, WP:ORG, this is not a hobby station, but a registered New Zealand business.
- The station hasnot had only 1 to 3 listeners at one time in a very long time unless the streaming server has been recently restarted and you check the stats immediately after the reboot (I am quite curious to where you are getting your statistics). They maintain an average of 30-50 listeners at any one time and have statistics to verify that fact. (If you supply the time that you claim to have seen only one or three listeners, I would be happy to provide you with the statistics to dispute your claim.)
- This has never been a "free advertising solution" as you claim, but a history based on verifiable facts. The station gets 100s of more references from our paid advertisements than we ever do from this article. (I can assure you that this station costs a great deal more that $40 to operate, as the electricity bill alone is much more than that. Not to mention the production costs of just one station ID cost nearly that much.) A company, AndHow Limited was formed just to fund this station's operation. The station and its affiliations are at no liberty to discuss this station's finances with uninterested parties. The claim "I do not see proof this station is licensed" is also false as the station is licensed to broadcast music by PPNZ & Australasian Performing Right Association. andhow.FM is also licensed as a business in New Zealand Companies Office (incorporation #3764296). Additionally they are also a licensed importer/supplier with the NZ Radio Spectrum Management to be able to bring transmitters into the country from overseas (ACN#Z1588). AndHow Limited is also licensed under the NZ Radio Spectrum Management GURL - http://www.rsm.govt.nz/cms/licensees/types-of-licence/general-user-licences/low-power-fm-broadcasting
- In the nature of good sport & WP:NPOV, I have removed all references in the article that cannot be verified immediately in a timely & simple manner. All other references in the article have merit and are based on facts in the multiple interviews that have been done with reputable journalists in New Zealand.
- The article is also well-defined for WP:BCAST, as it clearly states, "This project intends to include within its scope the science of radio, radio programming, radio personalities, the business of radio, and internet radio, as well as any other radio-related matters not covered by any existing projects."
- The station's deepest concern is that Vander Wallace is an anonymous Wikipedia editor & contributor, who claims to "work in the industry" & only has a verifiable history of their attempts to delete this site appears to have ulterior motives to choose this station over a whole list of NZ LPFM stations located at List of LPFM stations in New Zealand.
- --Andhownz (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Delete due to lack of evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources. All of the sources appear to be interviews station workers. And yes, I'm a local and not anon. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Weak delete - besides the fact that the article was created by (and is being defended here by) an SPA editor with an obvious conflict of interest, the article itself would not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Unfortunately, being within the broad scope of a Wikiproject does not have a bearing on WP:GNG. With regard to the references - the first and third references are the same. The radio heritage site mirrors the content (exactly) on the Kapi-Mana. That doesn't invalidate the source but it should only be cited once. The second and sixth sources are not actually sources and should be removed. One does not mention the station and the other is a Wikipedia page - remember, WP:WINARS. That leaves us with three sources and I'm just not sure that meets the mark for "significant coverage". I'm a bit on the fence - show me some more sources and I'll be convinced (by the way, have also re-spaced and re-formatted some of the above for clarity and ease of reading). Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC).Reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andhownz (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- There are actually three (3) separate interviews. Two (2) with complete different newspapers owned by different companies and two separate authors. One is an actual document copy of the newspaper article in the paper and the other is a online news source that was reprinted from the newspaper article and the third with State broadcaster Radio New Zealand
- Andhownz (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Comment I've added
[this reference] which the company's official entry in the registry of companies. It's the shortest entry I've ever seen. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry mate, didn't see your note until after - just removed that link while doing a bit of a clean-up of references. Surely this is not "coverage", but rather just proof the company / station exists? If you feel strongly that it should go back in I certainly have no problem with you reverting that part of my edit. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Sorry again mate. I've removed that link (now also from this page). Stalwart111 (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Comment (results and analysis of further research) The creator mentions listings in the New Zealand LFPM Radio Network database, and Radio Data System in New Zealand. That is not a sign of WP:GNG, it is simply a claim of existence. Many people have hobby radio stations with a few listeners at a time, 99.9% are not notable. A station that meets WP:GNG will get more than 1000 "unique" listeners during peak hours. Any number under 100 is not notable, in my opinion, and certainly 2 or 3 does not qualify. I did check this station's stats at different peak New Zealand hours of the day and evening. These low stats are normal, they are not from server reboot or lag. This station has a very small server that only allows 50 listeners at a time, they do not even have to be unique listeners. Sockpuppet (Internet) listeners will fill the 50 slots just the same. One computer can open 5+ different media players and register stats for 5+ listeners, but it will only register one "unique" listener and those are the stats that count in radio. Regardless, if the station wants to list listener stats, the stats have to pass WP:BURDEN.
- As you can see from the link, anyone could add any information they wanted into this online database form from The New Zealand LPFM Radio Station Network website. I could do this without having a radio station, much less a license. They list anything submitted and instruct that it is for promotional purposes. Who knows if they fact check it afterwards. Maybe, maybe not, but this fails WP:VERIFY and rather falls into WP:SPS.
- The originator of the article claims the station is licensed. I am not disputing the claim necessarily. They very well could have an easily obtained GURL. I do point out that not all LPFM stations are required to be licensed in New Zealand. Stations such as this are very easy to obtain by any layman, even when licensed. None of the references listed adequately support the station is licensed or notable, so they fail WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:GNG. The station does not meet Wikipedia standards strictly on the basis of the originator claiming they are licensed and notable, unless I am mistaken, and it comes awfully close to WP:SPS since you only need a little money to obtain one.
- As for claiming to be a business, again, anyone can register a dba and start a business in one day, this comes close to WP:SPS and does not mean they meet WP:GNG. All claims made in the two printed interviews, as well as the radio interview, are not verifiable beyond the word of the person being interviewed because promotional/entertainment interviews are not fact checked or peer reviewed. Therefore all 3 of the resources remaining fail WP:SOURCES, WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:GNG. They are at face value and for very local human interest, more WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:NOTRS, rather than news. The person being interviewed, more times than not, is the initiator of spots such as these, because they are good for promotion. Also, all of them fall within a recent, short period of time, 3 days. Again, this is indicative of being WP:PROMO. When anyone could call with any story, true or fabricated, and get an interview aired or published, I do not believe it should be considered as a reputable resource.
- "I can assure you that this station costs a great deal more that $40 to operate, as our electricity bill alone is much more than that. Not to mention the production costs of just one station ID cost nearly that much."
- None of the information provided supports the creator's case meets WP:VERIFY. I can and have created a great station ID in about a day myself, for free. I know the costs of running a station of this sort and they are fairly negligible. You can choose to spend more, but it is not required and quality will not suffer if you know what you are doing. Plus we must remember WP:SPS.
- "The claim "I do not see proof this station is licensed" is also false as we are licensed to broadcast music by PPNZ & Australasian Performing Right Association. We are also licensed under the NZ Radio Spectrum Management GURL..."
- The station may well be licensed, but I do not see verifiable proof of it that meets WP:VERIFY, so my statement is not false. When I do a license search on the NZ Radio Spectrum Management GURL site provided, the station name returns no results. An MHz search returns 3 document results for 107.5, none of which contain the name of this station, or the name of the person in the interviews. They all say 'EVERY PERSON' as licensee and 'ALL NEW ZEALAND' under location. So basically, every person in NZ has a license as well. I do notice, however, that others are being charged $255 a year for their GURL, even lower than I first stated. I did try to verify this station had a license before I started this debate, but was unable to online with the information provided. I tried again and am still unable. As it stands, even if a station has a GURL, being as how it is so easy to obtain in NZ, that is not indicative of meeting WP:GNG or even WP:A7. More should be required to meet Wikipedia standards in my opinion. The PPNZ license is only $115 a year and again, can be obtained by any layman online, plus consider WP:SPS. So far, I can not find an online database to confirm the creator's claims.
- (Thank you Stalwart111 for re-spacing and re-formatting my entry and to gadfium for adding inclusions. I have been following Wikipedia for years, but I wanted to start trying to contribute now that I am semi-retired. It will take time to learn the proper format. I notice I get too verbose, but hopefully I can learn to be more concise as time passes. Please correct any of my errors and I will take note not to make them next time.) Vander Wallace (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- (e/c) I suspect that others may find you more convincing if you express your arguments in terms of the general notability guideline, which is the standard by which notability is measured. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Thank you for the tip. I will study that page and hopefully be able to improve my contributions. There is so much to learn, it is a bit overwhelming at first, my apologies.Vander Wallace (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Delete - not enough to cross the notability threshold at this point in time. A minor local station with very limited coverage and only discussed in small circulation local papers. Even broadcast content seems to put it more into the translator station category NealeFamily (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Comment - due to a known issue with the ViaStreaming streaming host, all port 80 connections, those are ones that connect from behind a firewall when the standard port 7150 are not available, will only show as a "unknown" IP address showing as a SC Proxy which is the PHP script that redirects the listener to port 80. These in turn do not show up as "unique" IP addresses but as 127.0.0.1. The station has brought this to the attention of the support staff of ViaStreaming and they have advised that they currently have no other way to redirect via the proxy. If you have such a passion to check up on facts, the author is surprised that you did not contact ViaStreaming as you did the newspaper. Incidentally, the station has provided their stats to that newspaper's editor to back up their claims of listeners numbers, which apparently they are satisfied with that proof. andhow.FM has no interest in "faking" their listener stats and have no patience with stations that do. They enjoy a large and loyal listener base and are very proud of their efforts. They are also quite flattered and intrigued with the massive amount of time and energy that you have put into your attempts to slander and discredit their radio station. From their records & stats, you are actually increasing the traffic to their website and listeners to their station. As they say in the entertainment business, "there is no such thing as bad publicity!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhownz (talk • contribs) 18:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- By the WP:SPA creator's own admission, the station's listening statistics are filled with 127.0.0.1 localhost loopback IP, basically reading as coming from the station itself. This makes the station statistics unreliable due to sockpuppet (Internet) concerns. Note, I am not saying the station is listening to themselves necessarily, but there would be no way to verify that they are not. Therefore the statistics do not meet WP:RELIABLE or WP:V guidelines and can not be used to establish WP:GNG. If the publishers of the articles/interviews accept loopback IP statistics as verification of the claims made in promo interviews, this establishes WP:NOTRS issues, so I feel the last 3 resources also fail WP:RELIABLE. Being as how Andhow.FM's Alexa Ranking is 0, this further substantiates failure to meet WP:GNG. Vander Wallace (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Actually, they produced the AWStats from their playlist links to the newspaper. These show the actual IP addresses that initiated the connection to the media server. You said you "work in the industry" yet you appear to make a great deal of comments that prove that you don't even know that much about how streaming media works? Andhownz 00:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andhownz (talk • contribs)
- The interviewing journalist sent them to me as well. AWStats do not meet WP:RELIABLE, are not independent, they are open source, give mainly monthly data, plus in the bmp provided, do not separate unique listener stats. I believe that AWStats also fail to filter automated traffic, such as bots. The individual listener IP stats I referred to were not included in the very limited report. Hits could mean the same person, or bot, is logging off and on again and again. This is why, in the industry, independent stats on "unique" listeners are expected. 2 to 3 is what the shoutcast stats indicate for this station most of the time, which are independent. Regardless, it is not up to me to prove the station only gets 2 to 3 unique listeners at a time, the WP:BURDEN of proof falls on the creator. The station would have to produce independent stats to meet WP:VERIFY, and it would have to be from something that could not be manipulated, I would think. One AWStats page in bmp form does not meet that requirement. Vander Wallace (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Keep - all sources appear to be from valid media organisations. I have seen many articles on Wikipedia that are not tagged for deletion that have no references. So think that something is "fishy in Denmark" for the AfD. Flyawaymypretty (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC) — Flyawaymypretty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply
- If you can tell me where to find these many articles on Wikipedia that are not tagged for deletion that have no references, I'll deal with them. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
-
- Especially when Stuartyeates knows the alleged COI author personally and works one floor down in the same building. Which leads one to wonder, who is the SPA Vander Wallace really? mrbluesky (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
-
- Yes, incredibly poor form. And actually, my COI comment was a reference to both Vander Wallace and you (User:Andhownz / mrbluesky) - both SPAs with an interest (seemingly) in this topic only. You clearly work for or own the station in question and Vander Wallace clearly has a personal connection somewhere which led him to join Wikipedia for the sole purpose (initially) of nominating this article for deletion. You have both made your arguments about whether or not you think the article should be deleted. I think you have both made your positions fairly clear. Perhaps its time to take a step back (both of you) and let other uninvolved editors give their comments.
- As an aside, it's not particularly good form to change your signature mid-discussion - it makes it look like you are someone you are not or someone new to the debate which is clearly not the case. Please see this guideline.
- Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC).Reply
- Yes, I do have an apparent conflict of interest, love of truth. I would have called working down the hall from this guy a COI, but what do I know? Apparently good resources come from co-workers. I'm new here and learning. I only recommended removal once, in my primary post, the rest was resource checking and offering expertise on the subject matter and content.Vander Wallace (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Mate, I honestly don't really know what you are trying to get at, but given this is the only subject you have had anything to do with (WP:SPA) and you have clearly had significant offline interaction with the subject (WP:COI which can be both for- and anti-) I stand by my comments that those apply to you also. Stalwart111 (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC).Reply
- No, no, actually, I don't disagree with you at all, I just think the reason I am now WP:COI is ironic because I became that by attempting to verify the station resources for Wikipedia. The creator initiated the contact by emailing me.Vander Wallace (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Irony aside, given yours remains a single purpose account, a conflict of interest is not hard to concluded when a single article is your only interest. A conflict of interest is usually easier to detect by reviewing behaviour rather than verifying personal details. I don't know who you work for, who you are related to, who you had a messy break-up with, etc, in real life. But it is very uncommon for a new user's first edit to be an AfD nomination. Especially such a detailed one, out of the blue. It would be far more common for an newer editor to at least undertake some elements of WP:BEFORE ahead of an AfD nomination to see if the issue was a matter of WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM or not. Joining WP for the sole purpose of deleting a specific article without first making an attempt to fix it strongly suggests COI - it is classic COI behaviour. Anyway, as I have said elsewhere, I really think it's time to let this one just run its course so you can get on with the genuine contribution you say you are here to make. I have now created a talk page for you - I suggest any further non-AfD-specific commentary go there from this point forward. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- To Stalwart111 & Stuartyeates. Firstly my apologies to Stuart. That was pretty poor form, Stalwart is absolutely correct. I would never "OUT" you and I am sorry that to have caused you any distress. Sorry that you guys have gotten caught in the middle of all of this. We were just attempting to defend the article as it is something that all of us at andHow.FM were pretty proud of, but it all seems pretty bittersweet now and defending the AfD is really no longer my concern. Thank you for being good sports and defending the validity of Wikipedia. mrbluesky (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Looking at the weight of evidence, it seems likely that this page is going to be deleted. You can request a copy of the page (see WP:REFUND). What I suggest that you do is copy the references from the delete page onto the stations' entry in Radio_stations_in_Wellington (or a similar list) and add new references as they become avaliable. Then if/when the station gets enough coverage to be notable, you have both the deleted article and the list of supporting references. If you get more coverage and want an independent opinion about whether the notability threshold has been crossed, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions or similar. There is also a workflow at Wikipedia:Articles for creation designed to help new and relatively new editors with the article creation process and avoid confrontations.Stuartyeates (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Further to Stuartyeates' contribution (which is spot on, again) I'm striking out a section of your comment which comes (in my opinion) very close to breaching WP:NLT. Any non-Wikipedia, offline action you take is your business. I accept you were (probably) just making us aware of your next step and some other things that have been going on but this AfD is not the appropriate place to record your personal legal action against another person. Nor it is the right place to make that other person aware you are taking such action. Thanks, Stalwart111 (talk) 04:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC).Reply
- Delete - too small - SimonLyall (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Bloody hell! - just saw what User:Stuartyeates had to delete. This is getting ridiculous. I've asked admins to close this AfD. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Note to closing admin: please consider blanking this page on close to facilitate everyone to move on. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Delete Lacking core depth of third party sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Relisting comment: I thought about closing this, but I've relisted this for a very specific reason. The back-and-forth between SPAs is irrelevant, along with ridiculous discussions about how many listeners the station has based on online radio server stats and other such things (which are basically primary sources). I looked at WP:BROADCAST and all that stuff is completely irrelevant. Before closing this, it'd be useful if some uninvolved community members could evaluate the sources that have been provided per WP:GNG and WP:WEB etc. Further participation by SPAs will be ignored; if this becomes any more of a circus, blocks will be forthcoming. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Delete per WP:GNG. This appears to be a station that airs in a small locality ("Titahi Bay, Plimmerton, Mana, Camborne, Papakowhai and Pauatahanui" according to one source) rather than nationally or regionally. There is nothing here to distinguish it from many other similar stations and I think I would want to see rather more significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to retain this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2012 (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.
|
