Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WOLD-LP

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 delete. I trust that the man who wrote the policy knows how to interpret it. No prejudice against future recreation if someone can find reliable sources to get it past WP:NMEDIA. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WOLD-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)

Unremarkale radio station Nördic Nightfury 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:DEL6, WP:DEL8. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Boomer really needs to read WP:NMEDIA and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Americanfreedom (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Despite its small range, it's an FCC-licensed community station, meeting WP:BROADCAST and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES (I'm WP:AGF'ng on this one that NNF didn't know about the cited policies). Nate • (chatter) 06:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Actually, NMEDIA explicitly states that reliable sourcing about a radio station is required for an article to become keepable — and you need to trust me on this, because I haven't just read NMEDIA, I personally wrote most of NMEDIA. It certainly has a valid potential claim of notability, but it doesn't have a notability claim that exempts it from having to be properly referenced. Accordingly, I'm willing to reconsider my position if somebody can actually locate a real reference or two, but having an FCC license does not in and of itself confer a "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie on an article that cites no evidence of any RS coverage anywhere. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WP:NMEDIA section on radio stations states that "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." if it has one of those it's good to go. Americanfreedom (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which contradicts what I said how, exactly? I didn't question whether the station has a notability claim at all — but NMEDIA also explicitly states that the notability claim has to be supported by reliable sourcing. It's not enough to just assert that a radio station passes the notability criteria — reliable source referencing has to be present to support the accuracy of the claim. No claim of notability ever hands any topic an exemption from that, because people can and do insert inflated or outright false notability claims into Wikipedia — so an article can make a thousand notability claims, and still get deleted if those claims aren't and can't be referenced properly. NMEDIA's notability standards are not in conflict with what I said, because I was addressing the sourcing problem and not the question of whether it technically has a notability claim or not.

Long story short, having "a large audience, established broadcast history or unique programming" counts as notability if it's supported by referencing which shows those things to actually be true — but an article does not get kept just because one or more of those things have been claimed without sourcing them properly, because people have created articles about radio stations which falsely claimed that the criteria had been met when they actually hadn't been. So it's the quality of sourcing present in the article that determines whether it actually gets kept or not, not just the presence of an unsourced statement of claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find exactly one significant WP:RS source that is not a mere database listing or social media posting. There really isn't anything to verify the claims made to keep under WP:NMEDIA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (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.