Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whole Wheat Radio (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Wheat Radio

AfDs for this article:
Whole Wheat Radio (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)

Small article, station non existent any more, and shows no signs of getting better. Almost no references, or info, and no more can really be got because the station has ceased broadcasting. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 08:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 08:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was notable when the previous AfD closed two years ago so its notable now. A quick look at the article history reveals that it was stubbified after an edit war. This version of the article has issues but lists a large number of sources that could be used to create a decent article. Dricherby (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Dricherby. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was not notable two years ago and it was not notable now. I invite anyone who claims it is notable to find sources. I spent a long time looking for sources, and stubified it since I could not find any. The edit warring was to add 20kb of unsourced content. I don't know why anyone would find this a reasonable argument to keep the article. Shii (tock) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the edit warring was that you have blanked or stubbified the page nine times since your AfD nomination in June 2012 resulted in a "Keep". It wasn't that somebody was trying to "add 20kb of unsourced content"; it's that you were trying to clear the whole page and people were restoring it. Sometimes, you just blanked the whole thing; other times, you removed all the content over the course of several edits. Meanwhile, other people reverted your unilateral action. Along the way, you've left edit summaries such as "I'm the only one willing to clean up this page and I say Wikipedia is best served by having it redirect."[1] and objecting to the "continual addition of content by user who refuses to use talk page"[2] when this "addition" was, in fact, restoration of the (admittedly poor) content that you had just blanked. You did not "invite" people to find sources: you posted ultimata demanding that somebody provide sources within a few days or you would erase content [3] [4] [5] [6]. There is considerably more verifiable information about this radio station than the one-sentence stub you've left behind. More to the point, despite your claim to have been unable to find sources, the article already contained some reliably sourced information, but you deleted it anyway. Dricherby (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that I am the only one who tried to fix the article, and that nobody who has complained about my edits has examined these "reliable" sources themselves. Shii (tock) 06:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Shii: Well, I just did. These are the sources that you removed....
  • KTNA, an NPR-affiliated radio station in Talkeetna, Alaska - reliable
  • Anchorage Daily News - reliable
  • ABC News - very reliable
  • Wired Magazine - very reliable
  • The Scope, an alternative weekly newspaper from St. John's, Newfoundland - reliable and shows outside Alaska reach and listenership of WWR
  • Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, a newspaper (published three days a week) for the Mat-Su Valley in Alaska - reliable
  • Anchorage Press, an alternative weekly newspaper from Anchorage - reliable
  • KTUU-TV, an NBC affiliate in Anchorage - extremely reliable
  • The Whole Wheat Radio website - about as reliable as you can get
Now, there are a couple blog sources, but these are easily fixed. You had no reason to remove a slew of sourced content, even after consensus. That and the edit-warring on the page are blockable offenses. I think it best that you step away from this article and this AfD before you are blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for what? Being the only editor trying to clean up a page? I removed sources that say things like this: "CD Baby's president Derek Sivers says online radio is the best way to find new music and recommends indie-flavored Whole Wheat Radio, classic-rock Radio Paradise, and Soma FM..." That two-word mention hardly makes a case for notability. Shii (tock) 07:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For one, edit-warring. As an admin, you know better. You also know that a source doesn't have to be a full article, it can be two or three words or sentences. There is no rule that says how long a source must be (ie: how many words or sentences long). You know these things and yet, against established consensus and against WP:NOTABLE, you butchered the article, removed reliable sources and then throw some weird hissy-fit saying you were trying to clean up the article. Sorry, wholesale removal of content isn't "cleaning it up", it's butchering it. But you know these things, as an admin, you know this already. Step back, you are too involved in this article to see the forest for the trees. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm sorry but you (Shii) have no idea what other editors have or have not examined. Point of fact: I have complained about your edits and I have examined the sources. This one, which is the only source remaining in the article, also give the names of the people who ran the station; this one states that the station was volunteer-run, was listened to beyond the local area and hosted concerts; ABC news mentions the station and says what kind of music they played; The Alaska Daily News has a large number of event listings that can be used to illustrate the character of the station; Wired says they podcasted concerts of local bands. Much of the original article was dross but it's perfectly possible to write a couple of paragraphs from the sources available. Dricherby (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Dricherby. Notability is not temporary. Levdr1lp / talk 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:N#TEMP, and WP:NTEMP. Oh, I almost forgot, also per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore Shii seems to have removed much of the sources and text that were part of the article, thus the nomination is malformed based on a stubbed edit and I cannot support a nomination in that form. The other version is well-sourced and has no problems at all, and just because it's 2013 doesn't mean the notability goes away. Issues with the text as-is are easily worked out on the talk page rather than through deletion. Nate • (chatter) 22:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the non-stub version of the article actually has quite a few problems (principally large amounts of unsourced content and excessive detail) but, hey, AfD is not clean-up. Dricherby (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that alot can be culled, but definitely not to the point of this stub which reduces the content of this ten-year show to compare this to some teenager's poorly-done Minecraft podcast updated when they're not grounded. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's so ridiculous to see people complaining about how I removed stuff when nobody seems willing to actually look through that list of "sources", none of which used inline citation, and which were mostly one-line mentions (which is not a qualification for notability) or unreliable blogs. Something that existed for 10 years is not necessarily notable. Shii (tock) 06:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not true that nobody has been willing to look through the sources. Dricherby (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cleanup is one thing. I like cleaning up. If it were up to me I'd "clean up" half of Wikipedia. But the kind of clean-up you did is not OK as long as there is a list of possibly reliable sources that you also kept removing in that edit war of a while ago. Both of you should have gotten blocked there; what's unfortunate is that your opponent was a novice, not capable of writing acceptable content based on the sources listed. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dricherby and Mrschimpf/Nate. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Various early versions of this article did show evidence of COI promotional spam. However, unlike far too many other examples, there was also a willingness on the part of the WWR gang to work with the community and accept any necessary compromises. Plus, the above list of RS says it all - one minor point, the Frontiersman isn't a weekly newspaper, though it isn't exactly a daily newspaper, either. Still reliable, though. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 20:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Notability is not temporary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Examining the arguments in the nomination, were we to have a process that certified AfD nominations, this is an example of an AfD that IMO should not have been certified:
  • Small article,
Small articles are common and desirable in encyclopedias.
  • station non existent any more
As per WP:N the topic needs only to have attracted attention "over a period of time", so not a guideline-based argument.
  • [The article] shows no signs of getting better
Missing antecedent, was it the article being small that needed to get better?
  • Almost no references
What are the applicable policies and guidelines?  "No references" is sometimes used to imply a problem with WP:V, but the article at the time it was nominated, a one-sentence-long article with one reference, satisfies WP:V.
  • [almost no] info
Then the article has info.  Having info is not a reason for deletion.
  • no more [info] can really be got because the station has ceased broadcasting
This is an unsupported premise that nothing new will ever again be reported about the station.  There is also an implied idea that there is something insufficient about the existing sources such that new sources are needed, but such insufficiency is a fact not in evidence.
There is no analysis of what can be found in Google books, and the nomination identifies no policies or guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  All editors who post at AfD receive the following notice:
Administrator instructions
FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2013 (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/Whole_Wheat_Radio_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138724022"