Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWWX

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) Exemplo347 (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWWX

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to establish general notability (WP:GNG) or notability under WP:BCAST. The station's age is not enough to establish notability. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 15:57, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks significant information and the subject lacks notability. Bmbaker88 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per BCAST and OUTCOMES. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:54 on May 3, 2017 (UTC)
Keep: There is a presumed notability for most broadcast stations, as long as it is verifiably backed up by reliable sources. I've expanded the article a bit so that it's not just a two-sentence unsourced stub; I can't guarantee that it will definitively save the article (i.e., if it sufficiently establishes any notability WWWX might have), but it's reasonably safe to say that no matter what past outcomes for broadcast station AfDs have suggested about broadcast station notability in general, articles must have sources to survive an AfD. (Furthermore, even WP:BCAST seems to hint that stubs with minimal content — and far too many radio station articles fall under that category — aren't really encouraged at this point. For that reason, I do not feel this justifies a speedy keep based on the criteria; the article had been around as a stub since 2007 with little-to-no sourcing, and had no references at the time of nomination — an article persisting like that for so long is definitely at risk for potential deletion. Indeed, this may be more of a weak keep !vote than I'd prefer to admit…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I stumbled upon this because this station is in my watchlist. What exactly makes this station different from others in Oshkosh, Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter? It has an FCC license, and as the previous editor noted should enjoy a degree of notability due to WP:BCAST. It has multiple reliable sources indicating it exists. I am proud of the editors who brought in the 17 references to show this radio station exists. I would go even farther to say it is no longer a stub although I admit I have not seen the difference between when it was a stub and now. It has enough reliable sources. It is notable. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wcquidditch. Although Neutralhomer is correct that the base notability claims for a radio station are that it has a broadcasting license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC, CRTC, Ofcom, etc.) and that it originates at least a part of its programming schedule in its own studios rather than simply operating as a rebroadcaster of another station, Wcquidditch is ultimately most correct about what actually gets a radio station an article: reliable source coverage that properly verifies those things to be true. This was a completely unsourced two-line stub at the time of nomination, but a station is not exempted from having to cite reliable source referencing just because passage of our notability criteria for radio stations has been claimed — so what saves this isn't the statement that it exists, but the significantly improved sourcing and substance that have been added since nomination to improve the article. Bearcat (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per post-nomination rewrites and Bearcat's tour de force argument.A Train^talk 15:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and note to closing admin: !votes posted before the 23:38, 3 May 2017‎ rewrite were for a substantially different article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 7 May 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.