Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CINB-FM

Add links
Source: 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. (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CINB-FM

CINB-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BROADCAST "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." I don't see how any of these criteria are met and the subject also fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per Bearcat's explanation below. I appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Please consider my nomination withdrawn. Tchaliburton (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common outcomes are not guidelines. It still needs to meet WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 02:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, they are...and it does. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per longstanding consensus that we keep articles about licensed broadcast radio stations, for which reliable sources always exist. Completeness is an encyclopedic virtue, and no good reason has been shown to vary from that practice here. Sources are already supplied in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional sourcing would certainly help, so by all means the article should be flagged for {{refimprove}} — but to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, all that a radio station has to do is be properly verifiable as having been duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority (CRTC in Canada, FCC in the US, Ofcom in the UK, etc.) as an originating station (as opposed to just a rebroadcaster of another one). If those two criteria are verifiably met, then the station passes BROADCAST — and even if the station were just a rebroadcaster of another service, then it would still just get redirected to its programming source rather than deleted (which is, for example, what we do with the exclusively satellite-fed Air 1 and K-LOVE retransmitters that Dravecky alluded to above.)
Simply put, the station does not fail to meet the criteria you've singled out. "Established broadcast history" is satisfied right on its face by the fact that the station has been on the air since 2001. That criterion was meant to exclude licenses or permits that were issued to stations which for one reason or another never actually launched, and then had their authorizations lapse without ever actually getting on the air at all — the moment a station actually launches an OTA signal, however, by definition its broadcast history has been established. And as for "unique programming", I suspect that you think the criterion is expressing "innovative format that's radically different from what's ever been done before on any other station" — but that's not what it means. All a station has to do to satisfy that criterion is originate at least one program in its own studios — even if the entire rest of its schedule is syndicated or networked programming, by definition that one local program is "unique programming". It doesn't have to be unique in the "innovative" sense of the word — it only has to be unique in the "originating from the station itself" sense.
Further, the CRTC license documents themselves count as legitimate sourcing. (For example, they're exactly how you can even verify that the station has actually been duly licensed, and isn't a non-notable pirate radio station instead. And they're the only possible source for technical parameters like the station's ERP and HAAT stats, too.) They're certainly not all the sourcing you would need to get an article to GA or FA status, which is why an article that's relying exclusively on CRTC decision texts for sourcing should be tagged for refimprove, but they do count as sufficient sourcing to start a keepable article with under GNG. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tchaliburton: Bearcat answered your question better than I ever could.
@Bearcat: Well said. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons I explained above, the station does pass WP:BROADCAST. Sourcing improvements are certainly still needed, so the article should be tagged for {{refimprove}}, but the core criteria — duly licensed station that broadcasts over the air (satisfying "established broadcast history") and actually produces at least some of its own distinct programming (satisfying "unique programming") — have been properly met here. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2014 (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/CINB-FM&oldid=1070572311"