Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WCRX-LP
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The result was Nomination withdrawn per changes made. No point in keeping this discussion open, given that I just spelled out the arguments offered to me here in relevant essays. See Wikipedia:Notability (media). Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WCRX-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Contested prod. Low power radio station. Broadcasts only two hours a day, no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding WCRM-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was pointed to me by the article creator, and seems to be just as deserving of deletion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Both stations are licensed to the FCC as community LPFM stations. Their programming schedule or signal range should not play any part in arguments as they are both licensed, and one of them is a Pacifica affiliate. Could do with some cleanup, but not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Both stations are licensed by the FCC, both have the standard notablity for radio stations. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to the specific policy or guideline to that effect? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: We have determined that anything with an FCC license is protected from deletion. We've saved KPDF-CA, KUNP-LP, and KTFL this way (see the KPDF, KUNP, and KTFL AfDs). Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 04:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With nothing that can be consulted with regard to the specific application of WP:N to radio stations, this cannot be a speedy keep, and this will certainly not be the last such AfD. In my home town, a low-power radio station was recently licensed with the sole purpose of advertizing a new condo project. And it was fully licensed by the CRTC too. By the standards of those here who are asking for a speedy keep, the developpers of that condo would get a free pass to circumvent WP:SPAM by writing an article on the radio station instead of one on the condos themselves. Even a rejected guideline proposal would be better than nothing at all. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the station have a license? (I am not familiar with the CRTC, but they fall under the same notablity regardless) If so, then yes, it would get a page...and probably one day will. If it is a Part 15 or a Pirate, that is up for debate. Give me about 5 minutes and let me dig up the old notablity essay we have. It is old, needs updating, but with the precedent of many AfDs, it holds true no matter what. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the old and in need of updating policy about notablity in media. Even though it needs updating, with the precedent set by several AfDs, all closed as keep, it holds true regardless of updating needs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, I believe we should try to resurrect the page Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations), or an amended version of it. It is currently tagged as inactive, even obsolete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the old and in need of updating policy about notablity in media. Even though it needs updating, with the precedent set by several AfDs, all closed as keep, it holds true regardless of updating needs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the station have a license? (I am not familiar with the CRTC, but they fall under the same notablity regardless) If so, then yes, it would get a page...and probably one day will. If it is a Part 15 or a Pirate, that is up for debate. Give me about 5 minutes and let me dig up the old notablity essay we have. It is old, needs updating, but with the precedent of many AfDs, it holds true no matter what. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With nothing that can be consulted with regard to the specific application of WP:N to radio stations, this cannot be a speedy keep, and this will certainly not be the last such AfD. In my home town, a low-power radio station was recently licensed with the sole purpose of advertizing a new condo project. And it was fully licensed by the CRTC too. By the standards of those here who are asking for a speedy keep, the developpers of that condo would get a free pass to circumvent WP:SPAM by writing an article on the radio station instead of one on the condos themselves. Even a rejected guideline proposal would be better than nothing at all. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as consensus and years of precedent tells us that, like small towns or major highways, all government licensed broadcast radio and television stations are notable. The essay at WP:BROADCAST does a good job of explaining this and the essay you reference is marked inactive and obsolete because it reflects neither consensus nor reality. - Dravecky (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I said. If you simply point out that it is inactive and obsolete, then you are just saying you are unwilling to fix the problem. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Reactivating Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations), where you seem to have totally missed the point of my initial post, even after I attempted to set you straight on it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem. You want to "reactivate" something that was never active in the first place, had been marked as dead for three years, and in any case has been superseded by a comprehensive essay with current guidance on the notability of radio stations. This essay (part of WP:Notability (media)) is doing the job just fine so there is nothing here on which I feel I need to be set straight. Your assertion that "a massive group AfD" might follow your proposed changes is a clear indication that your intent goes against the current consensus and years of consistent precedent. - Dravecky (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I said. If you simply point out that it is inactive and obsolete, then you are just saying you are unwilling to fix the problem. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Reactivating Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations), where you seem to have totally missed the point of my initial post, even after I attempted to set you straight on it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:N—lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.BRMo (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Vote changed to keep based on the new references added by User:Dravecky. BRMo (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - Have you read any of this or did you just slap down a vote? An FCC license is the station's notablity. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, assume good faith. Yes, I read the discussion, and I disagree with you. An FCC license seems like a pretty weak argument for keeping an article that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources are at the bottom of each and every page. One from the FCC, one from Radio Locator, and one from Arbitron. These sources are at the bottom of every radio station page....AM, FM and LP. Yes, we could slap a couple more sources on the page (Dravecky is pretty good at finding them, ask him) but with three already there and the standard notablity that radio stations and television stations have....I think it is more than enough. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, assume good faith. Yes, I read the discussion, and I disagree with you. An FCC license seems like a pretty weak argument for keeping an article that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. BRMo (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have you read any of this or did you just slap down a vote? An FCC license is the station's notablity. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATE Thanks to a few moments of Googling, I was able to improve and more thoroughly reference this article, including sources like...
- Matuszak, John. "Bexley Public Radio returns airwaves to community". Columbus Messenger. Retrieved June 17, 2009.
- Martineau, Gail (August 6, 2008). "Station finds a home in Whitehall garage". Bexley ThisWeek.
- Hambrick, Jennifer (January 2008). "Columbus Community Radio Takes Off in '08". Short North Gazette.
- Perhaps if more editors observed WP:BEFORE then there would be fewer AfDs. - Dravecky (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2009 (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.