Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHJG-LP

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WHJG-LP

WHJG-LP (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)

This station does not seem to be notable. No Google news hits at all. Google web hits appear to be largely trivial, such as mentions on sites of the owning company, access sites to sign up to listen on line, directory sites that list this with many other stations, and other wikipedia pages. No independent sources cited in the article except to show its bare existence. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory site. Yes it does exist, but it is not in any way notable. (Prod was declined.) DES (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. DES (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This 100 watt FM station is licensed by the FCC and produces a portion of its programming locally. In recent years, these attributes have led to radio stations being kept as "Notable" in AFDs, according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. If it were a lower power unlicensed transmitter. or if it only re-transmitted programming originating elsewhere. there would be no such assumption of notability. Edison (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. A licensed station broadcasting its own content.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Citing_this_page_in_AfD: "This page summarizes what some editors believe are the typical outcomes of past AfD discussions for some commonly nominated subjects.
This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change. The community's actual notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of their sources, not their subjective importance or relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view." IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, Speedy Keep: Established consensus continues to show that radio stations are notable, this one is no different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a licensed broadcast radio station originating local programming, per consensus over hundreds of discussions that such radio stations are notable for the purpose of inclusion in Wikipedia. Such media outlets are themselves reliable sources and as a paradox involving marketplace forces are themselves only seldom discussed by their competitors, thus leading to this solid consensus. - Dravecky (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been asked to withdraw my nomination. Frankly, all the sources now in the article have only trivial or directory-type coverage except for the one from the station's owners, which is not independent. It therefore fails the WP:GNG. I disagree with the consensus that all such stations are inherently notable regardless of coverage, but it apparently is a consensus, which I respect. (But then I disagreed with "all schools are notable" also.) I do not withdraw my nom, because I think this should be deleted, but I won't object if this is closed early -- the consensus does seem clear. Indeed if I were uninvolved I would have to snow close this as keep. DES (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the only reasoning that can be given for a keep is to blindly point at WP:OUTCOMES and this argument is accepted, then outcomes like this will keep happening regardless of whether or not the topic is itself notable. Effectively whatever subtopic gets on WP:OUTCOMES self-perpetuates its own existence from merely being on the list. The additions on that list don't contain examples or citations to even demonstrate the case; anyone who makes an addition to that essay (in good faith mind) is unlikely to be challenged because others will, most likely, not be familiar with it that topic area and so allow it. WP:OUTCOMES is an essay, look closely at the header on the top of the page: "Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." What's a relevant policy guideline for an AfD? WP:DEL-REASON with the supplement guideline WP:N. The only source that comes close to satisfying WP:GNG is this brief in a local newspaper: [1]. This article is nowhere close to WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No, we aren't blindly pointing at anything. There is strong, established consensus that radio station and television station articles are notable, so much so it is part of the Wikipedia Rulebook at WP:BROADCAST. Members of WP:WPRS are quite familiar with the radio station area of things and anyone could edit the WHJG-LP page, to say that can't or would be challenged isn't showing good faith (that AGF stuff) and is saying we are OWNing articles (untrue). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Per WP:BROADCAST, "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." and this station is verifiably originating unique programming, satisfying the criteria. What you're perceiving as blind pointing is a just weariness of being asked to relitigate this issue every six weeks or so despite many years of broad consensus regarding licensed broadcast stations. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Editors putting these up related articles for deletion every six weeks doesn't sound like much of a consensus. All your arguments consist of pointing at essays, BROADCAST is an essay, look at the header: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines.". The article doesn't satisfy policy and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it sounds like people who aren't familiar with the established consensus of Wikipedia nominating articles for deletion that they feel are non-notable. We have consensus, we have established this consensus, this consensus has been tested time and time and time again by people who aren't familiar with that consensus. Kinda gets old after awhile, especially when we point to WP:BROADCAST and people ignore it, we point to WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media and people ignore it, we tell people about the consensus and they ignore that too. After awhile you have to realize the consensus, the outcomes and the rules are in our favor, we have met WP:N, WP:V, WP:GNG, and others. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't point to WP:BROADCAST then. It is an essay; essays don't necessarily represent consensus, and they don't have to to exist. For example, there is nothing to prevent me writing an essay that is the exact opposite of WP:BROADCAST in every point (as this essay points out: WP:NOTPOLICY). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the consensus doesn't exist? Prove it! Because I can...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. All of those are AfDs from misguided people who didn't look at the rules, didn't look at WP:BROADCAST, didn't look WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. Once they realized their mistake, their withdrew or !voted "keep". The ones that weren't withdrawn all went "keep". Why? WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, because we have consensus. That proves our consensus, now prove we don't. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most (all?) of these are low turn out AfDs. Consensus can change (but it's dubious if these reflect the global consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps WP:NBROADCAST should be created as a specialized notability guideline, like WP:NALBUM. DES (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really since WP:BROADCAST is just a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (media) (for just media; ie: radio, TV, etc.), which itself is a subsection of WP:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Wikipedia:Notability (media) is not a subsection of WP:N, Wikipedia:Notability (media) is just an essay an can represent a minority (or just a single person's) opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@IRWolfie: Wow, faced with all that and you still can't admit there is consensus. For someone who has been here since 2006, you don't know the rules all that well, do ya?
@Closing Admin: Move to strike IRWolfie's !vote as the evidence produced above shows solid consensus has been formed (a looooong time ago), WP:BROADCAST and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media back that consensus up, and IRWolfie is stubbornly and blindly disregarding that established solid consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In summary the question is does the essay WP:BROADCAST trump the notability guideline. In neutralhomer's list of AfDs, I note the same faces appear to have also voted here: I suggest this be re-listed for a further period to get a feeling for the true global consensus on the issue. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly oppose anything that puts already established solid consensus through the ringer for one stubborn individual with zero experience editing radio station articles, giving input on radio station notablity discussions or posting on WP:WPRS outside of one edit on the WBZ-FM article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. An Ad hominem attack and incivility are uncalled for. I am not required to agree with you, the closing admin is fully capable of weighing up the consensus. There is nothing wrong with checking the consensus on an issue and I find it rather puzzling that you disagree. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should tell me to AGF when you haven't even tried to assume good faith. Every response you have made is tinged in bad faith. You are faced with clear consensus and yet you refuse to see it, refuse to change you !vote and think relisting to make a POINT (as Dravecky as pointed at below) is a good thing. Don't talk to me about good faith until you show some yourself. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting to make a WP:POINT, even though consensus here is already solidly "keep", is not the purpose of the process. - Dravecky (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been only 6 editors in this discussion; if anything not a solid indicator of the true consensus (i.e the consensus across all wikipedians). Consensus also isn't a vote count, it's a weigh up of the arguments "through the lens of policy and guidelines". IRWolfie- (talk)
Wolfie, both Dravecky and I have been here about the same amount of time you have and Dravecky is an admin, so I think he knows the rules. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being an admin adds zero weight in a discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. The Banner talk 23:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: See the consensus listed above and the 6 sources on the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)Firstly: I am asking for neutral and independent sources. Not the local paper, the own website or the agency regulating radio stations. Secondly: I don't see consensus with two (three, mine included) delete-votes. The Banner talk 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all primary. The Rock River Times source is actually just a re-print of a press release. Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neutralhomer, we have gone over this before, WP:Consensus#Level of consensus says "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Therefore a consensus at WT:WikiProject Radio Stations can not overwrite WP:Notability#General notability guideline. Because of that, any consensus at WikiProject Radio Stations that does not follow the general notability guideline is invalid. Powergate92Talk 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response: ...and I have said this numerous times before, at the top of Wikipedia:Notability (media), which WP:BROADCAST is part of, it says "This notability essay for media topics is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a topic should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." Emphasis on the bold is mine. That, my friend, is your consensus. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP:GNG is the official guideline. No independent sources, no article. Clear as crystal. The Banner talk 23:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a line added to an essay that's infrequently edited from 4 years ago. If the essay truly had as much consensus as GNG it would be a guideline. It's not. How much it reflects consensus is undetermined. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@The Border: Well, because it is established consensus...and we have 6 sources. FCC is independent, The Rock River Times is independent (the press release mentions two stations, not just the one and the other is owned by another company), Arbitron is independent, the source to the station can be replaced with 8 different sources for each program listed, plus the ones in Spanish. Easier to just link to the station's schedule.
@IRWolfie: It's still in the essay (which is part of WP:N) and it doesn't matter when it was edited, that's not relevant. You are not here to determine the consensus of any article, that is for the community and not one person and the community has determined radio station and television station articles have consensus and are notable. Again, with the fingers in the ears. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer: WP:BROADCAST is an essay about notability, it's not part of WP:Notability. For guidelines that are part of WP:Notability, see Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines. Also, WP:Policies and guidelines#Role says "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." Powergate92Talk 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhomer: Yes, the FCC is an independent reliable source. But The Rock River Times article is not independent because it's a press release. As for Arbitron, I'm not sure if that is reliable source or not. Powergate92Talk 01:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The information available from the FCC website is primary source information, in the same way that patents are primary sources even though they are made available by the USPTO. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Gazzeteer is a geographical dictionary/directory: I don't think it is necessarily apparent that a small radio station with no significant coverage merits inclusion any more than a local shop or an internet streaming website does. Also; WP:CONSENSUS can change. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 14 August 2012 (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/WHJG-LP&oldid=1079649775"