Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUSW

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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The result was withdrawn by nominator. JPG-GR (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KUSW

[edit]
KUSW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Radio station which does not assert notability. GNews shows no hits, [GHits] as a whole brings up very little 'meat'. The PROD was contested per Wikipedia:NME, which is not a policy, however it states that "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming.". None of these have been shown in the article - the station has only been running for two years, for example - and I feel has been created purely to fill in a redlink in an infobox. The correct criteria is WP:CORP, which says: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.. This article has none of those sources, and I can't find any on the internet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the article being vastly improved, and no longer being a stub which fails to assert notability, I'd like to withdraw this nomination, without creating a precedent for future discussions, that is. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Radio station does not appear to be notable. Doesn't appear to be covered using third party sources and I can't find any news articles about it. I originally prodded the article. All hail the muffin! 17:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC) comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs)
Since when were radio stations automatically notable? I can't see that at WP:N or WP:CORP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems appropriate to keep unless there is an appropriate consolidated list with the same information. But that would be a loooooooong list. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia policy does NOT say "radio stations are automatically notable." According to WP:NME the station must have a large audience, established broadcast history or unique programming, which is not demonstrated for this station. There is nothing in the article that indicates notability of this station, so the article should be deleted, as there is nothing in a search to indicate notability of this station. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good points. I checked out the section, it also says "Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles." My issue is that the information be included and the topic redirected to appropriate article, but I don't think this needs to be a stand-alone article. But if no place to merge exists... then this should be kept until it is created. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to create such a list. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Entertainment, which says:
      • Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios. Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. Stations that only rebroadcast the signal of another station should be redirected to their programming source (e.g. CICO-TV is a redirect to TVOntario.)
Not being able to find free references using Google doesn't mean that references don't exist. Someone with access to broadcasting and advertising industry publications not available for free online may be able to find references to the station in those.
Stubs are useful because they provide basic information and serve as a starting point for expansion. This article is a stub, and should be kept. Redirecting the article reduces the chance that it will be expanded to be more than a stub. If someone wants to create a table listing details for every radio station in New Mexico, they can do so, but then someone else will argue that categories are better than lists and try to delete get the table deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, but what you link to isn't a policy - it's a list of common outcomes. If someone has access to references asserting notability for the radio page, then someone can add them - otherwise we have none, and the article fails to assert notability per WP:N. This article does very little other than fill up a redlink. If someone has anything that pushes it beyond the boundaries of non-notability per WP:CORP, let me know, and I'll happily withdraw the debate once the references are added. In the meantime, it isn't notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A search of other publishing databases NOT available free (such as Lexis Nexis) throw up no third-party references to KUSW, nor does JSTOR which is usually better at finding obscure references. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep after significantly expanding this article, adding several references from both primary and secondary sources, and noting that government-licensed full-power broadcast radio stations have long been found to be inherently notable as they serve a significant population over a definable geographical area. (If you haven't looked at the article very recently, I humbly request that you review it again as it has been much improved over the original nominated version.) - Dravecky (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per expansion, cites multiple sources beyond the nearly-inherent notability of licensed radio stations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Radio station articles are automatically notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 12, 2008 @ 23:31
Again - where does it say this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where it says this, but in previous deletion discussions it has been made clear by admins and others from WP:WPRS that radio station articles are inherently notable. Plus, the precedence set by those previous deletion discussions makes the "radio station articles are inherently notable" arguement all that more solid. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 13, 2008 @ 02:04
Since when did admins and wikiprojects have the deciding word in global policy changes? Admins have no more say than normal users, Wikiprojects are bound by WP:N just as everyone else is until there's a policy stating otherwise, and precedent, while a good rule to go by, is not binding. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above - let's keep this discussion there :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The thrust of the "broadcast media" section of WP:NME is to argue, without using the controversial idea of "inherent notability", that most broadcasters are part of the local infrastructure and geography, in a way that other sorts of businesses are not. While the essay does suggest creating a table before generating dozens of stub articles, this is not a stub. Anyway, it looks like sources were found, so the AFD is moot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:10, 13 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KUSW&oldid=1082616963"