Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WMEJ

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 keep. I was mindful that WP:BROADCAST is merely an essay, however it is cited frequently in similar AfDs. I also considered AfD Common outcomes (which is also neither policy nor guideline). On balance I feel there is an existing and long-standing consensus to follow WP:BROADCAST. TFOWR 10:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMEJ

[edit]
WMEJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article cites two sources: the radio equivalent of a WHOIS record and a press release. Neither is a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Huh? WP:BROADCAST and consensus has long presumed notability for full-power-license stations that are not merely rebroadcasters, and "unique programming" is explicitly mentioned in the guideline. I don't think the sources were there to establish notability — I certainly didn't think about it when I updated the article, because it's always been presumed by WP:BROADCAST unless shown to be a rebroadcaster. (And it is admittedly a stub.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is well established here through long held consensus around licensed radio stations. Interesting story too about its recovery after the hurricane though that could stand some references from more reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus can change, though.RussianReversal (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is always true that consensus can change but that doesn't appear to be the case here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs)
People, WP:BROADCAST and "consensus" (i.e. agreement among a few interested parties) do not trump policy, which is that Wikipedia is not a directory and all articles must have reliable independent sources. This article lacks any sources for anything beyond its existence. I can provide similar sources for the existence of my house. Feel free to add non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, because everything above amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't WP:ILIKEIT require the editor to like it? For example, I updated the article only because I was making sure the link to WMEJ didn't misdirect now that this station had this callsign; I don't have any vested interest in it at all. That the station has an established broadcast history (a minimum of 27 years for this station, and likely longer) is established by FCC FMQ; and that it has unique programming is established by the sources (website establishes a request line and its own studio, and Orban citation established that the station carried its own music selections at some point). Is there any question that the station has a 27+ year history and has broadcast its own programming? Your house is not an independent source of public attention on a daily basis, such as a radio station or daily newspaper is. That said, I suppose it's fair to point out that WP:BROADCAST is still considered an "essay" on Wikipedia and has not been raised to guidelines status. Nevertheless, the presumed notability of a full-power license with independently-controlled programming has been followed to the point of being taken for granted in 99% of cases the past few years. Consensus can change, of course; but if one is going to put forth that receiving a full-power broadcast license and having independent program origination is not grounds for presuming notability on English Wikipedia, then that is a change in guideline interpretation that may affect hundreds (or thousands) of articles; if that is the intent, then I would say it requires, at the least, that someone say that they believe a high percentage of broadcast station articles are on Wikipedia in error and that the (well-known) consensus should be re-evaluated explicitly and in general. --Closeapple (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
''Comment "WMEJ is the best station around" is an example of WP:ILIKEIT, I'm not seeing any arguments that thin in this discussion. Contributors to this discussion are pointing to the FCC as a reliable, non-trivial source (along with other sources in the article) and a long held consensus that this is enough to establish notability. However, the nomination is beginning to look like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not necessarily with the article in question but with the concensus on notability of licensed broadcast stations. --RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an article about a single entity is a "directory" anyway. If someone wants to change the consensus that's described in WP:BROADCAST, it requires that people agree that the consensus should change. In three years, however, I can't remember that we deleted an article about a government licensed radio or television station. Mandsford 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD was closed by User:Ktr101 at 22:03 yesterday. However, WP:NAC explicitly states that non-admin closure is not appropriate for WP:SNOW cases. Therefore, in accordance with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, am reopening this discussion.
    I would note that WP:BROADCAST is an essay, does not have consensus, and while it is citeable as a possible reason for keeping the article, does not have the force of guideline or policy. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, let me see if I understand this correctly....everyone above is "ILIKEIT" and Guy (who is clearly "IDONTLIKEIT") can go against the consensus and notability established with other AfDs and discussions by other admins elsewhere because he essentially doesn't like something. Is that what we are doing? We are deciding what is and isn't consensus now? Hell, wipe the site clean cause half of the stuff on here would fall under Guy's IDONTLIKEIT logic. Radio stations, be them AM, FM or LP (Low-Power, per the FCC) and Television stations, be them full or low-power are notable and have been since the start of this very project. To now say that aren't, would completely ignore years of consensus that they are. As I have said previously, this is a waste of the community's time and the close was a good one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and the article now cites four sources. Two of which are the Federal Communications Commission, a United States Government department, so a big time reliable source and the other two are local newspapers. So, I think this more than passes the WP:N test. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would point out that I reopened this AFD strictly on procedural grounds, because non-admin closures on SNOW grounds are not permissible. I have no opinion on the merits of this article (although I do think there are perhaps too many articles about random American TV/radio stations), but I do not think that leaving this discussion open for its full duration will cause any harm to Wikipedia and will not therefore be snow-closing it myself. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can't help there are too many articles, there are too many of them cause there are too many stations. The few that remain in WP:WPRS and WP:TVS have done a great job getting radio and TV station articles up, keeping them updated and notable, keeping them sourced. But please don't think that this is just an "American thing". There are articles for radio and TV stations in the UK, Australia, France, many places. Where there is radio and television, there are articles for them. So this isn't just an "American thing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:35, 15 June 2010 (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/WMEJ&oldid=1068834442"