- 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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
WGCS
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- WGCS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Student college radio station with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference and the external links confirm existence, but there is nothing to suggest notability. JBW ( talk) 14:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, FCC-licensed stations pass the WP:N bar. Does need help, but nowhere near deletion. Nate • ( chatter) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been keen on arguing for keeping or for deleting on the basis that someone has said somewhere that in the past similar pages have been kept or deleted respectively. Even if we assume that the statement is true (which does not by any means go without saying, as such statements are posted by individual editors without having to provide statistical evidence) it merely means that for some other articles on similar topics there has been evidence of notability: that does not absolve us of the need to check whether there is such evidence in this case. This is, in fact, a form of
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. A striking case was the issue of secondary schools, where for a long time people used to dismiss the possibility of even considering deletion, because someone had written somewhere that such articles were always kept. When eventually, after several years, someone had the audacity to question that accepted view, it was found that consensus was against it. Nor had there ever been any discussion anywhere which had establish consensus for it: some editor had just said that was what happened. Indeed, the page you cite actually says "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change", "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, 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 Verifiability and Neutral point of view", and other things along the same lines.
JBW (
talk)
22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ JBW: Please see below and the article as it is currently. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
JBW: You happen to have come into this at the tail end of some significant changes in guidance for this topic that pretty much have led to what you describe.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. When I wrote my comment above I wasn't aware of some appallingly disingenuous activity related to this, which is currently the subject of a case at ANI. I intend to comment on it in more detail when I get time. JBW ( talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been keen on arguing for keeping or for deleting on the basis that someone has said somewhere that in the past similar pages have been kept or deleted respectively. Even if we assume that the statement is true (which does not by any means go without saying, as such statements are posted by individual editors without having to provide statistical evidence) it merely means that for some other articles on similar topics there has been evidence of notability: that does not absolve us of the need to check whether there is such evidence in this case. This is, in fact, a form of
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. A striking case was the issue of secondary schools, where for a long time people used to dismiss the possibility of even considering deletion, because someone had written somewhere that such articles were always kept. When eventually, after several years, someone had the audacity to question that accepted view, it was found that consensus was against it. Nor had there ever been any discussion anywhere which had establish consensus for it: some editor had just said that was what happened. Indeed, the page you cite actually says "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change", "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, 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 Verifiability and Neutral point of view", and other things along the same lines.
JBW (
talk)
22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Nate and as I have completely revamped the entire page, added a SLEW of sources that more than meet GNG and N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I've added more sourcing, mostly on the historical side with newspapers. I'll say this while I'm here... The vast majority of US radio stations have sourcing sufficient to meet the GNG: it's just that they either weren't digitized in the late 2000s when stubs were being written or that they are paywalled behind services like Newspapers.com. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Nate's argument. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 ( ICE T • ICE CUBE) 14:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
WGCS
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- WGCS ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Student college radio station with no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The one reference and the external links confirm existence, but there is nothing to suggest notability. JBW ( talk) 14:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, FCC-licensed stations pass the WP:N bar. Does need help, but nowhere near deletion. Nate • ( chatter) 17:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been keen on arguing for keeping or for deleting on the basis that someone has said somewhere that in the past similar pages have been kept or deleted respectively. Even if we assume that the statement is true (which does not by any means go without saying, as such statements are posted by individual editors without having to provide statistical evidence) it merely means that for some other articles on similar topics there has been evidence of notability: that does not absolve us of the need to check whether there is such evidence in this case. This is, in fact, a form of
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. A striking case was the issue of secondary schools, where for a long time people used to dismiss the possibility of even considering deletion, because someone had written somewhere that such articles were always kept. When eventually, after several years, someone had the audacity to question that accepted view, it was found that consensus was against it. Nor had there ever been any discussion anywhere which had establish consensus for it: some editor had just said that was what happened. Indeed, the page you cite actually says "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change", "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, 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 Verifiability and Neutral point of view", and other things along the same lines.
JBW (
talk)
22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ JBW: Please see below and the article as it is currently. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
JBW: You happen to have come into this at the tail end of some significant changes in guidance for this topic that pretty much have led to what you describe.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c)
06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. When I wrote my comment above I wasn't aware of some appallingly disingenuous activity related to this, which is currently the subject of a case at ANI. I intend to comment on it in more detail when I get time. JBW ( talk) 13:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have never been keen on arguing for keeping or for deleting on the basis that someone has said somewhere that in the past similar pages have been kept or deleted respectively. Even if we assume that the statement is true (which does not by any means go without saying, as such statements are posted by individual editors without having to provide statistical evidence) it merely means that for some other articles on similar topics there has been evidence of notability: that does not absolve us of the need to check whether there is such evidence in this case. This is, in fact, a form of
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?. A striking case was the issue of secondary schools, where for a long time people used to dismiss the possibility of even considering deletion, because someone had written somewhere that such articles were always kept. When eventually, after several years, someone had the audacity to question that accepted view, it was found that consensus was against it. Nor had there ever been any discussion anywhere which had establish consensus for it: some editor had just said that was what happened. Indeed, the page you cite actually says "This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because consensus can change", "Notability always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, 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 Verifiability and Neutral point of view", and other things along the same lines.
JBW (
talk)
22:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Per Nate and as I have completely revamped the entire page, added a SLEW of sources that more than meet GNG and N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I've added more sourcing, mostly on the historical side with newspapers. I'll say this while I'm here... The vast majority of US radio stations have sourcing sufficient to meet the GNG: it's just that they either weren't digitized in the late 2000s when stubs were being written or that they are paywalled behind services like Newspapers.com. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Nate's argument. SBKSPP ( talk) 01:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
- 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.