Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWEC-FM

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 redirect to MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. After the relist and source analysis the consensus is much clearer. Redirects have the numeric advantage and the policy-based advantage. Two of the keeps are policy-free. The delete helps push this towards redirect, an ATD, because it shows that editors do not think this article should exist in its current form on Wikipedia. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWEC-FM

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This page was repeatedly redirected and restored but it fails GNG. Refs provided are a trivial mention (ref 1, 3), or a routine announcement. My WP:BEFORE search found trivial mentions or the routine Yearbook but nothing that is SIGCOV, 1, 2, 3. Therefore, this fails WP:GNG. To clarify: I support a redirect below per WP:ATD possibly with salting, though the latter might not gain consensus. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging users who redirected and restored, User:Boombastic061, User:49.146.27.149, User:Superastig, User:Onel5969, User:Rosguill, and User:WayKurat.

VickKiang (talk) 07:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore redirect, then salt to prevent recreation. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt to MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. Plus, salt the page to prevent recreation UNLESS passes WP:GNG/WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others and my prior conclusions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that, while the threading of the AfD may suggest otherwise, the sources mentioned below by Astig were already in the article at the time of the AfD opening. I think the Manila Standard coverage is borderline as far as whether it counts as routine or significant (no byline, some puffery, but also a fair amount of neutral details), and does not establish GNG on its own. The other sources are either more trivial or not secondary, leaaving us short of GNG as a whole. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2 (added upon recreation) and 3 in the article is non-trivial coverage about the station. Sources 1 and the additional sources indicated by the nominator states that the station is licensed. That said, article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improved by Astig. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like said above by Rosguill I don't believe this was improved by Superastig, their analysis is sound IMO but the refs were already present during my AfD nom, could you elaborate if it's possible? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others Goodvibes500 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per the close challenge on my talk page, I have relisted the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if editors !voting keep could substantiate why/how the article meets GNG: other than a mere mention in a comprehensive industry yearbook, the two articles cited in the piece are from Manila Standard ([1]) and LionhearTV ([2]). I've already analyzed the MS piece above. LionhearTV, meanwhile, self-identifies as a group blog [3] that offers "direct premium advertising" and "online media partnerships" [4]. I don't think an article from this source with a collective byline can be considered reliable, and it may well be a lightly-edited press release from the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here is my source assessment table. For the keep votes, if it's possible could you explain how LionHeartTv net is RS? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://psa.gov.ph/sites/default/files/2011PY_Communications.pdf		Trivial mention.	✘ No
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=E5MVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0woEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2101%2C2122589	Credible newspaper	~ While the coverage is announcement-like and leans on the shorter side, it is plausibly SIGCOV.	~ Partial
https://web.archive.org/web/20201008045714/https://www.msn.com/en-ph/entertainment/other/tahanan-po-ang-mor-for-12-years-sorry-dj-chacha-bids-tearful-goodbye-as-mor-my-only-radio-faces-closure/ar-BB16PyM4	The website is likely unreliable, see about us pages at 1, 2, and has no editorial policies	~ No byline and an announcement that resembles an edited press release, despite decently long with some commentary.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Redirect Compelling case above from VickKiang. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Not particularly notable; no indication of how it passes WP:GNG or what sources are good enough to qualify to be SIGCOV. Nythar (💬-🎃) 21:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. Source analysis is convincing. 4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough, and not worthy of it's own article. Read WP:GNG. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: Per WP:ATD would you concur with a redirect? VickKiang (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but no. This is not notable. Even I, an ABS CBN fan haven't heard of it. Not notable, only 1 passing mention, no independent sources, nothing. Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect voters and me (the deletion nominator) agree that it is not notable. However, I'm asking the reason that you oppose a redirect, which is an alternative to deletion. Do you believe that the page would be converted to an article again? I've also left a message at your talk page. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were would you want to redirect it then, Brother? I've already serched multiple articles compatible for this to be redirected, but I found nothing relevant to this subject. I've already researched before making my vote. And I'm sorry brother, my vote is final. nothing in WP:ATD's alternatives can be done here. Either way, I'm pretty sure that you don't need to worry. Because my single vote of delete is rather unsignificant. Thanks! Ploreky^{Have a problem?} 08:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will refrain from commenting further, but just a note that DWEC-FM is mentioned at MOR Entertainment#Final MOR stations. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:00, 2 November 2022 (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.