Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRJE-LP

WRJE-LP

[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)

Contesting a deprod. Radio stations, like other articles, must meet the WP:GNG. Right now, this one does not have any independent, non-database, non-streaming link sources that would permit that, and the nominator did not supply any sources that would count toward notability. It is our experience that radio stations that are new in the last 10 years, and low-power FMs in general, struggle to meet the GNG—we used to make articles for stations once they started broadcasting, and that is no longer advisable. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Missouri. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of data — including reference links — is missing from the article I originally submitted. I have restored that material and also added several new references for context and verification.

That said, I remain concerned that Wikipedia does not appear to recognize the FCC — a federal government entity — as a reliable source, despite its official status. Additionally, I noticed that another LPFM station in the same town, KFOH-LP, remains published despite having significantly less content, several broken links, and largely database-driven references.

To apply the “non-GNG” (General Notability Guideline) designation to this article, while others with equal or lesser notability remain, raises concerns about editorial consistency. It gives the impression that federal documentation is being dismissed, which runs contrary to common sourcing standards, and that LPFM stations are not being held to the same accountability across the board.

This concern is reinforced by the editorial comment:

"It is our experience that radio stations that are new in the last 10 years, and LPFMs in general, struggle to meet the GNG... that is no longer advisable."

The term "advisable" is subjective and lacks policy weight. It should not be used to discount well-sourced content. I modeled my original article using the format found on KVCO’s Wikipedia page, which remains published without major content reduction. That article also relies primarily on database-style references. You suggested:

Find sources: "WRJE-LP" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR

However, can any AM, FM, LPFM, or satellite station be reliably sourced through JSTOR, Scholar, or traditional news archives? These platforms seldom cover local, nonprofit LPFM stations — making FCC data, nonprofit registration, and public records essential for notability verification.

Given the sources presented — including FCC records, nonprofit documentation, and external references — I believe the article meets notability and verifiability criteria. If further constructive feedback would help improve the page, I welcome it. Additionally, I’m open to creating a supplemental article about the parent 501(c)(3) organization, which can provide verifiable supporting documents.

Respectfully,

Dustin M. Williams Kc0uuf (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kc0uuf, I wanted to respond to some of these comments from the perspective of how we see things today in 2025.

As Bearcat noted, the FCC is reliable, but it does not contribute to notability. Once a station has enough sources to be notable, then we can use the sources that don't contribute to notability to add needed facts.
We have gone through a slow-motion purge of hundreds of radio station pages in recent years. Participants at AfD have seen this in action. More radio-related articles went to AfD in nominations closed in 2024 than at any time ever on the English Wikipedia, and 2025 is on track to outpace it. Of course, not all are stations, but a look at the page titles indicates an increasing proportion of them are. The WikiProject Radio Stations article alerts data, which goes back only to mid-2022 but covers actual station articles, indicates that we've had a year-on-year increase every year since tracking began. I am looking at doing a mass purge in Mexico with hundreds of pages that I created. But these efforts take time.

I did a preliminary review of KFOH-LP and at least have a couple of newspaper articles to work with. That's more than I have for WRJE-LP, because KFOH has the benefit of going on the air ten years earlier.
The underwriting section on KVCO shouldn't be there. It's generic info for which we have an article: Underwriting spot. And we don't maintain lists of non-notable staff. (It's unfortunate this article wound up being your inspiration, because it's off the mark.)
In this field, we have hundreds and hundreds of stubs (some of which can support expansion, if they're older) and hundreds of articles that, if evaluated under today's standards, would not survive AfD.

Some low-power FMs do get enough sourcing. I should know because I've taken three current and former LPFMs to Did you know?: WHIV-LP, KWEM-LP (though that one has some unique circumstances), and the former WOOL-LP, now WOOL (FM). I also saved KBWG (like WOOL, a former LPFM) at AfD just six months ago.
The 10-year "rule of thumb" is not the fault of radio stations. It has to do with declining interest in radio and, just as importantly, with decreased resources in American local newsrooms. Since 2002, the number of local journalists in this country per capita has declined by 75 percent. And I see this across the board in my topic area of local radio and TV. Events that got articles 20, sometimes even 10, years ago don't even get attention now. The result is that sometimes we can't cover things that we know happened! There are very few of the old-style broadcast columnists, whose columns can feed hundreds of citations into entire markets, still writing somewhere.
{{Find general sources}}, which produces those links, is transcluded as a courtesy on every AfD nomination. Articles of every variety come through AfD. (Click the "View log" link to get a taste.) And some of them do indeed have journals that would be relevant, though not this one.

This isn't a comment on RadioJoe's programming or purpose. It's about how we as an encyclopedia have changed since in 2021 users resoundingly told this project area to raise its bar. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not established by using primary sources to verify that the topic exists, it's established by using third party reliable source coverage about the topic in media to demonstrate that the topic has been the subject of third-party attention. The FCC is not entirely verboten as a source — it's the only possible source for some of a station's technical details, such as its transmitter power, ERP or HAAT statistics — but it doesn't count toward establishing notability, because it's just a directory entry in a database that has a directory entry for every radio station in the country, and thus just verifies the station's existence without establishing its significance at all.
Also, "consistency" is not a goal of Wikipedia, or at least not in the way the commenter above me thinks — our goal isn't to have an article about every radio station that exists, it's to have an article about every radio station that passes GNG on the sourcing while not having articles about radio stations that don't pass GNG on the sourcing. That is, our goal is to be consistently well sourced in what we include, not consistently indiscriminate in what we include. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Basing an article on other articles created during an era of lower inclusion standards is a bit of a risk, considering that inclusion is not an indicator of notability. FCC records may be reliable for technical information, but the days of them being perceived as a notability indicator are long gone, since we now need significant coverage in independent sources. At most this title should be a redirect to the list of radio stations in Missouri, but given there appear to be COI issues here as well I don't think we need to retain the article history. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Missouri: That way, if additional information is found, it can be easily changed to a standard page. As a side note, I'm curious how a station in western Missouri received a call sign starting with "W" rather than "K".--Thomas H. White (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas H. White The organization applied for it and the FCC granted it. It use to be this hare had to have K's. @Sammi Brie i have a much better understanding now if what you all mean in the notarity and potential COI. I would have no objection to delegation if the station can still be listed as active on the missouri list of radio stations. DW Kc0uuf (talk) 06:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kc0uuf, that's exactly what the general rule of thumb is once these articles are processed. WRJE-LP at least merits an entry as an active LPFM. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:19, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet, User:Kc0uuf, I gather your comments are an unbolded Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]