Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WMCN (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. By the numbers it's an easy keep, although my sense of the discussion is that its a much closer call. I do think the wider discussion concerning the boundaries of broadcast station notability is well-considered. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMCN (FM)

WMCN (FM) (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)

Radio station having questionable notability, no substantial coverage in sources given. Article consists primarily of a program guide. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All American radio stations are notable and have been deemed as such in the past, and despite the coverage area that barely gets 2/3 of St. Paul, this is no exception. FCC licensed, although I do agree the program guide can be purged. Nate • (chatter) 08:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Appears to fail notability. It is an FCC licensed station, though with an educational license, and originates much of its programming in its studio. It has had these licensed call letters since 1979. Such stations have generally been kept in past AFDs (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media and the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media), although there is no policy which guarantees inherent notability for all such activities. The fact that it only transmits with 5 watts of power and only gets out a couple of miles is a negative factor, as is the fact that it goes off the air in the summer and between terms; this makes it seem more like a hobby or vanity operation than a "real" radio station. If it had a several hundred or several thousand watt transmitter and maintained a daily operation its case would be stronger. The campus independent paper said that "the station is not popular" and "listeners are scarce" and those who do listen mostly use the webcast. I could find nothing but directory listings or passing references at Google News Archive and Google Books. Student activities such as chorale groups have had a great many articles deleted when there has been a better case for notability. Edison (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Speedy Close - All radio stations, be them FM, AM, LP, CC, MW or defunct share a strong notability. Article has three sources given. There is no "questionable notability". Request speedy close of this AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A directory listing in a database is not "significant coverage" for purposes of notability, nor is their own website "independent." Where is any guideline or policy which backs up your claim of universal inherent notability for all low power hobby broadcasting activities, which put out no more power than my CB radio? They are comparable to a college musical or dramatic group, club, or intramural sports team. A fine hobby, but not necessarily deserving of an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer: Please see WP:NMEDIA and WP:BROADCAST. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Both of your links go to the same essay, which mentions "even a 10-watt station" at a school "may be notable" (rather than "is automatically notable.") This one is only half of what the essay cites as a marginal station. An essay is not a very powerful rule for granting automatic notability to a hobby activity on a campus which apparently has not gained significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as a notable radio station would. Edison (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If I weren't mistaken, I would say you are just looking for a reason to go around precedence and notability and have this article deleted. You have been given many reasons, several have voted keep, as an admin, you should know that radio stations enjoy notability and have precedence to back that up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As noted above, FCC-licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, particularly those holding full AM or FM licenses. Taking into account its days as a carrier-current station, the station has been on the air for better than 50 years. Information regarding the station's history that could flesh out the article is available from primary sources, and it's hard to believe that it could have operated for this long without some coverage in secondary sources, even if those sources aren't easily found. In the meantime, the trinity of standard radio station article sources - the station's FCC record, Arbitron's quarterly survey, and the Radio-Locator listing - is already present. Thanks for whoever removed the program guide. Mlaffs (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Directory listings do not prove notability, in general. I could not find them in Arbitron. Please provide a link. Edison (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    True, and I didn't intend to suggest they did — my apologies if that was unclear. My point was more to make it clear that the article wasn't completely unsourced. The directory listings do point to verifiability, though, which is useful. Also, an industrious editor making use of something like the FCC records can uncover information that might help in the search for other sources that would buttress the claim of notability. For example, the station has held other call signs in its history - might those lead somewhere? Given when the station was first licensed, might it have received one of the last class D licenses that were issued? Not sure, but would be interesting to find out. Mlaffs (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] says that in 1978 the FCC set 100 watts as the minimum power a station could broadcast at, while previously class D stations could transmit as low as 10 watts. WMCN broadcasts at half of that micropower. Is WMCN a "low power FM" station, like class L2 (1 to 10 watts)? We have many articles about LPFM stations, which are identified as such, like WOMM-LP (whose FCC listing describes it as "FL Low Power FM" with 100 watts of output. There is the whole category of [Low power FM stations]. Low-power broadcasting says L2 is considered "amateur class D for international purposes" so they are indeed comparable to ham radio or my CB radio insofar as having one should not confer automatic notability. The FCC just says "FM Full service" with the license granted in 2003. Yet they have only a token transmitting power and shut down for weeks at a time. A bit puzzling. Edison (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't technically correct (and may have changed) as WPEB in Philadelphia is a full-power station (not low-power FM) and operates at only 1 watt of power as it is licensed. I have seen a couple other stations that operate at only a couple watts and are full power. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a newspaper with a circulation of 1 copy. The last time MNCN mentioned their webcast audience, they said it peaked at 30 simultaneous listeners. Edison (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah on, Monday, March 27, 2006....so I think they probably picked up some web listeners since then and that doesn't factor in radio listeners and that doesn't take anything away from the notability that station enjoys. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, what policy or guideline grants automatic notability for a 5 watt, seasonal, student activity, even if licensed? A ref to show the increased web audience, and some significant coverage in independent and reliable sources would be helpful. (Their webcast does not work with Windows Media Player, but does work with RealPlayer). Edison (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave you two of them above. You didn't like either. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like them just fine. But I pointed that "they" were both just one essay, which cannot confer inherent notability on some class of article subjects. I could write an essay that says every mail box is notable, but it would not make it so. Edison (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read what Dravecky said. You are fighting awful hard to get rid of this radio station and override long standing precedence and notability standards. Don't seem right to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable, per dozens (hundreds?) of discussions, as infrastructure like a major highway where easily-Googled press coverage is not always available. In any case, a Google News search does turn up some coverage in St. Paul Pioneer Press and other sources. The station's coverage area may be small relative to a 100,000 watt blowtorch in Montana but its location in the heart of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metroplex means that tiny signal may cover as many people. In any case, popularity is not a test for notability. - Dravecky (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment A link to the source you found would be helpful, if it is more than a passing reference. Edison (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay, but I've been hip-deep in other article rescue tasks. I've significantly expanded and referenced the article. Given the station's 30-year broadcast history and location in the heart of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area I feel certain that even more data is available in offline sources, especially from the pre-web 1980s and early 1990s. - Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can any of the keep !voters please provide sources rather than just asserting they exist? Stifle (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and comment As previously stated, FCC licensed stations are notable. As Dravecky said, "popularity" is not a test for "notability." There are sources within the article. But it seems as though people are ignoring that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment No guideline or policy has been provided to back up the assertion of "inherent notability" for every hobby activity student radio operation, even if it has an FCC license (like my equally powerful and longer-ranged CB radio has). And which of the sources are reliable and independent and have more than passing reference or directory listings, as required by WP:N?? We need more than handwaving assertions that "THEY ARE NOTABLE!!" or "I LIKE IT!!" for radio stations with output power way less than the light on my front porch. Edison (talk) 04:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You sir are a liar. I have provided two (!) guidelines and you tossed them aside. Also, this is a clear keep, yours behind the down vote, so this is a moot point. Take your hatred for radio stations and your "I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT" eye covering of the guidelines in front of you and precedence set and take a hike. Your lying above shows you are here just to see this deleted and nothing more. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides totally violating the policy on civility and policy forbidding personal attacks, you do not seem to understand that the ONE essay you have linked to is NOT A GUIDELINE, let alone two guidelines. In addition, you violate the guideline requiring an assumption of good faith, by claiming that I have some absurd "hatred for radio stations" rather than a sincere doubt that this one meets the notability standard. In the past I have !voted to keep many articles about more notable ratio stations, and have contributed significantly to many radio and TV station articles. Please drop the ad hominem attacks and look for evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dravecky and Mlaffs above. Licensed station, serves the public interest even at flea power. It's only a matter of time before we have an official policy on this subject.--MrRadioGuy P T C E 19:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, and a comment. Stifle/Edison, I haven't been home a lot over the last couple of days, but I have dug around to find some coverage of the station. Articles can be found from April 2, 2010, October 2, 2009, September 19, 2008, September 28, 2007, October 13, 2006, and February 10, 2006. This is not broad coverage, as all of the articles are from the same publication, but it is a start. I have not yet been able to find anything in electronic form from the local dailies and I suspect that it may not be possible to do so, particularly if the station's popularity has waned in recent years. However, given that the station has been in operation for about 50 years, and licensed for most of that time, I'd again suggest that it's highly unlikely there hasn't been some coverage in the local media over that time.
I'd also ask if it might be possible for people to take a deep breath. NeutralHomer, as much as several of us have been through a number of these deletion discussions and seen how they tend to turn out, it's not outrageous for an editor to question whether the station is notable and there's certainly nothing sinister or personal in doing so. Edison's original !vote was quite well-reasoned, and they are correct, in that there are really only two places within the WP namespace that discuss radio station notability - one of those is an essay, and the other is simply a summary of common outcomes of deletion discussions. Neither of those carries the weight of either policy or guideline, and it is entirely possible for consensus to change. Whether it has or not may well come out of this discussion, or another similar one at some point in the future. If this were one from the LPFM class of stations, which broadcast at a similarly-low power level, it might be even less cut-and-dried as to whether or not it's a keep - I believe there have been "-LP" stations deleted in the past, as there have also been "-LP" stations kept in the past. Again, there's nothing personal about this. We've worked well together in the past, even as recently as a couple of days ago, so I hope you'll appreciate that I'm coming from a place of respect when I say that, although Edison hasn't asked you to, I would appreciate it if you'd strike your comment above regarding his/her motives - it really wasn't called for and it doesn't help the tenor of the discussion.
Edison, I think this discussion may have highlighted a gap that concerns members of the radio stations project, as MrRadioGuy alluded to above. Additionally, given the lengthy history of the station, I think that characterizing it as a "hobby" station is a little pejorative. There are countless college radio stations across the country, many of which broadcast only on the internet or on an "unlicensed" basis, and there's rarely been any argument over the fact that they don't have "inherent" notability. Those that have been challenged and been kept were able to demonstrate a significant history, coverage, etc. Otherwise, it's the license that's generally been the bright line in the past, and consensus in the past has been that that's not an unreasonable standard, particularly where it's a full license rather than an LPFM one. Mlaffs (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Because you asked politely (thank you) and that, yes, we have worked together I wish not to tarnish that working relationship, I have struck my above comments with all but one sentence left in the open as it was not rude. If anyone wishes that to be struck, let me know.
I think though Mlaffs and MrRadioGuy bring up a good point. There needs to be a specific policy, let's say WP:RADIOSTATION (with one for TV stations too) that says that all FM, AM, and LP stations are notable and allowed, this would include current, past and defunct radio stations that were FM, AM, or LP. CC and MW stations may be brought up for discussion as they don't share the same notability as FM, AM, and LP. Unlicensed stations are flat out not notable as previous discussions has dictated. This would include Part 15 stations and pirates. Notability doesn't equal popularity, ratings, listenership, webstream listernship or any other form of listernship. Notability equals an FCC license (which all pages link to in External Links) and all FM, AM and LP stations must have by law. I think that is a good start to a policy and would cause us all from having these discussions where things get a little heated (my fault) and we start repeating ourselves. My fear is, if this doesn't pass, ALOT of work could be in jeopardy as well as the entire radio station Wikiproject to multiple AfDs. But I don't write policies, I write radio station articles, so you all would have to weight those options first before taken this up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThanks. The language could be perfected on the talk page of WP:N or a separate guideline could be worked into a consensus and made a guideline simply by labelling it as such when there is a consensus on its talk page that it is ready. This discussion could proceed directly to the talk page of WP:N, to try and agree on a line to be inserted. I have worked on such separate guidelines which were torpedoed and ultimately labelled as "rejected" or "essay" by deletionists, inclusionists, or folks who just hate "instruction creep," but the essence of the rejected guideline eventually made it into the main notability guideline or an existing subguideline. Some editors opposed blanket notability for every member of some large class of organizations which never seem to get the sourcing needed for GNG, since Wikipedia is not a directory or a mirror of every government database. Blanket notability usually just goes to things like navy warships or legislators where there is a reasonable presumption that somewhere (maybe in old pre-online newspapers) there are articles, like a long-defunct radio station which was once a major news source in some town. It can be hard to find reliable and independent sources for low power stations, but I have done so for some. There might need to be some screen for 1 watt stations which got a license but never broadcast, or whatever, just to keep out thousands of permastubs. There are doubtless some very low power stations whose peak audience is a mere handful, if the local airwaves are crowded with good stations and the programming is wretched and occasional, and such might indeed be no more notable than the fraternity softball team. Certainly some pirate station might be notable. Certainly some online-only "radio stations" could be notable. We have had deletion discussions about campus "radio stations" which only "broadcast" by the PA system in the cafeteria. Since Wikipedia:Notability (media) was rejected, let's just open a discussion under "broadcasting stations" on the talk page of WP:ORG, unless someone feels WP:N talk page makes more sense. I have opened such a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Broadcasting stations. Edison (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a station, in Arizona I believe, that had the license, but not the license to cover (the last true step before broadcasting). The company went under or something and the page was deleted since it technically wasn't a true radio station. Another example is WPRZ-FM...it ain't there. That is cause while it is on the FCC website, it is just a license and not notable enough since it is just in constuction permit mode. So it was moved to my userspace. Essentially I made the page too early. These are examples of what could be considered "not yet notable" and be subject to AfD, but mostly moving to userspace until it crosses that notable line (which doesn't take long). The defunct stations (there are two in Virginia at the moment listed), I think since they were licensed and some do come back should carry that notability clause. I don't think we should say "no license, no page". Like those two stations in Montreal that broadcast from the 20s. LOTS of history and references, but they are off the air (defunct) due to the company pulling them offline. We keep those around cause they are historic. So, I think some lauguage could be built to specify what is notable, not yet notable and just plain and simple not notable. Most stations (Mlaffs and Dravecky are working on some now) have inline references to the FCC license and other information. Some others are just listed at the bottom. Doesn't make them any less notable, just we haven't gotten around to them yet. :)
I think the lauguage of the new policy, be it at WP:N (WP:N#RADIO anyone?) or at WP:RADIOSTATION (or whatever) should list the following....EDIT(see here for the full updated idea)
Who here thinks this is a good start and would like to add to it? We can take this to a user's talk page, work on it, vote on it as a group and then take it to the WP:N talkpage and let them hash it out. I again voice my concern that if we do, there is a possibility that there could be a backlash on radio station articles with multiple ones being nom'd for deletion. I think that should be put in the language too. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:29, 9 April 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/WMCN_(FM)&oldid=1088287053"