678:
desirable to change some of these. Some matters, like the wording of the N standard itself, are changed in a legislative sort of way by amending the standard; if thought desirable, a standard or guideline on radio stations could be developed. At present, it's essentially a judge-made standard, made by continuing AfD discussions such as this one here. I understand the meaning of precedent in WP to mean that we should continue prior practice in individual cases, until we intend to change it. As in the RW, one of the factors to consider is how such change will affect the cases treated in the previous decisions. Since WP has the peculiar rule that articles kept may be brought up repeatedly, those interested in consistence may want to re-discuss early articles.
326:
this geographic area with real content has been protected over a debate on the reliability of a web site. In almost all cases the sources are 1/ the website 2/lists that include all radio stations. Neither of them counts. I don't want to do it myself as a project like the removal of transmission towers, but any argument for removing these 2 applies to 95% of them.
603:(Reply to Bearcat) The debate between you and Akihabara about what WP:AFDP actually means in regard to radio stations is fascinating but irrelevant. It's irrelevant because WP:AFDP is a description of what has happened in past AFD's, not a prescription for what should happen in future AFD's. Outcomes of prior AFD's have nothing to do with whether
202:
knowledge of the station's operations. A band or musician may have gotten its first big break by getting airplay on a particular radio station (which would help establish notability for that station), but how easy is it to verify this 25 years later? This is another example of the gap between notability and
298:
Lists that include all (stations ) or anything else are trivial sources for the purposes of notability --See WP:N ( "Non-triviality" is an evaluation of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and of how directly it addresses the subject.)
206:
notability. I would prefer to keep these articles, even if they are just stubs, and avoid deletion votes for radio stations which will be a lot like the deletion votes for high school articles, which satisfy noone and exhaust everyone. That way, when a radio station becomes famous for breaking a news
317:
I asked for the AfD to get just this sort of discussion. We judge the subject as being notable, not the article, and I can tell what stations suit my interests, but not whether or not they are notable, so I was hoping for some guidelines. If there aren't any they all must stay is at least as stubs.
201:
which is labelled as inactive. I would argue that most radio stations which have ever existed are notable in the context of the culture, news and politics of the cities and countries in which they operate or operated, and that establishing notability in individual cases is difficult without detailed
575:
meet them if they're duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority and originate at least a part of their own programming schedule. It's not as though you're introducing some radical new litmus test that nobody ever thought of before; in fact, you're citing the exact same policies that were
325:
On the other hand, looking at a number of radio station articles, most of them don't have much to say. They all have the same sources, which are reliable if not very informative. Some belonging to major chains have more (they CBS ones, for example, have the CBS box at the bottom.) The only one in
677:
If N and V are properly applied, they will give consistent decisions. If similar cases coming up now are being decided differently, then the standards are not being properly applied. The AFDD page states what is intended as an honest summary of past consistent decisions. As WP evolves, it may be
231:
is a totally practical concept: are there enough external sources that we can use to write a verifiable article? In this case the answer seems to be no for both WEGO and WEAF (which is no surprise -- most small radio stations wouldn't pass WP:N). Of course, if the articles are deleted now and
694:
I'd support and take part in creating a brief guideline for radio stations; no need to make it too long or wordy IMO. As a starting point I'd suggest notability is given by broadcasting to a sufficiently large area (certainly all large cities would qualify) or having a DJ or presenter that is
462:
You seem to be taking this the wrong way; perhaps I could have worded better. My apologies. It doesn't say what you claim though; if it did it would read "As an exception, Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently
172:
removed the prod with "may be just as notable than the others on this list--just needs some editing". There have been an enormous number of radio station stubs added over the last two months; are these stations notable merely by their existence? I doubt it; hence this AfD.
466:
Regardless, prior consensus is not set in stone and can change; this has happened several times already. What little consensus exists in this discussion does not match what it apparently was before. As another example, today you de-prodded the campus station
480:
If a radio station is duly licensed by the appropriate media regulation authority, then it's notable enough for
Knowledge (XXG). I'd really love to know how else you propose to distinguish notable radio stations from non-notable ones beyond that.
329:
As I said, I'm neutral. In or out. I dont think it is essential content, since the outside lists are available & they all have websites. Someone thought them worth the boxes and the categories. Take a look at a few others before you vote.
607:
2 articles should be kept. In fact it says in bold at the very top of WP:AFDP that "This page is not policy." By contrast, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:CORP are derived from WP:V and WP:NOT, core policies. I would say those trump WP:AFDP.
444:
permit any kind of cutoff that splits FCC-licensed stations into licensed-and-notable vs. licensed-and-not-notable piles on the basis of some arbitrary minimum transmitter power. If it's FCC-licensed, then it's in, period. That
227:(Reply to Eastmain) I don't think notability should be either speculative or inherent. Even if it turns out that, say, some band really did get its first play at WEGO, that would not automatically imply that WEGO is notable.
254:), let alone outside. In any case, however, in the absence of tspecific policies and guidelines, more general ones must apply, This does not assert any notability nor does it provide independent
180:
to this AfD; simply because I prodded both at once. After prodding these two I noticed how many had been added, so I stopped at that point. It'd be great to get some consensus here. I'll stay
318:
A poorly written article which for some reason doesnt have the detail of the 100s of parallel articles needs the detail in, not the article out, and just needs to be marked for expansion.
683:
So, do we intend to change it and make some radio stations NN? We can adopt whatever rule we like--there are adequate reasons for either policy. Or do we prefer a hit-and-miss approach?
356:, take your pick. The references in the articles, and the passing mentions I find in local papers in Lexis-Nexis, are trivial as they are nothing to build a Knowledge (XXG) article on.
161:
110:
394:
Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable
513:
will absolutely trump AfD debate, since new issues may raised in any given AfD which may lead to a new precedent or even new guideline. (Of course, they'd better be
653:
that were made at prior AFD's that all such radio stations are notable, then cite those arguments. Those arguments may or may not convince others in this AFD. But
198:
381:— because until a new policy discussion takes place on the matter and decides on something different, established precedent is the final and non-negotiable word.
250:
to be a policy which says all radio stations are notable. Nothing, IMO, could be farther from the truth. Many are barely notable within their community (see
645:
meet if they're duly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority and originate at least a part of their own programming schedule" -- You are citing AFD
371:
Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios.
279:. The Federal Communications Commission's page listed at External links "Query the FCC's AM station database for WEGO" is an independent reliable souurce.
471:; however I really fail to see how that station has any genuine claim to notability. In other words, I think the precedent as you see it is too broad.
436:
what it means. What it means is that if a station operates under a legally-issued FCC license, then it gets an article. The exclusion applies to
584:
place. So if you don't like the precedent as it stands, then try to build consensus around a new policy statement that specifically addresses
422:
You misread it. Are these lower power stations? Some I saw seemed to be. The rest of the text is an example, not an exhaustive list.
197:. There ought to be a policy which says "all radio stations are notable". The only relevant policy-like document that I could find is
17:
592:, because as things stand right now, it's not as though you're citing anything that hasn't already been taken into account.
567:
on whether radio stations meet them or not — the precedent as it stands reflects a lot of debates in which those policies
134:
129:
138:
762:
36:
638:-- they can be AFD'd again -- and it's certainly not the final word on all radio stations ("This page is not policy").
232:
appropriate sources surface later as you suggest might happen, nothing prevents anyone from recreating the articles.
207:
story or being the first to broadcast a particular song, Knowledge (XXG) will have a good stub on which to build. --
743:
unless sourced. Lengthy keep arguments are meaningless. If you want to keep the article add some reliable sources.
405:
Part 15 stations are not listed in the FCC database, because they're not licensed operations. Since WEGO does have
121:
409:
in that database, by definition, it has to be a licensed station. A Part 15 station wouldn't have a four-letter
761:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
83:
78:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
168:
Disputed prod; my prod reason was "notability not asserted". Appears to be a minor community radio station.
87:
543:
You're misquoting me. Allow me to rephrase myself: until such time as somebody articulates a new policy
70:
649:
as if they can determine general policy. They cannot. Please, if you are convinced by the actual
658:
609:
357:
233:
518:
428:
I haven't misread anything. I was personally involved in the process of determining how best to
251:
747:
735:
719:
699:
689:
661:
621:
612:
596:
538:
485:
475:
457:
417:
400:
385:
360:
336:
305:
287:
271:
236:
222:
211:
188:
52:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
526:
366:
353:
716:
506:
732:
534:
267:
49:
522:
255:
696:
472:
423:
397:
219:
185:
125:
349:
228:
284:
208:
728:
712:
618:
593:
482:
454:
414:
382:
155:
104:
262:! Change to keep if independent reliable sources are provided before AfD ends.
744:
695:
notable. However I don't think mere existence should be one of the criteria.
530:
263:
509:! Precedent ranks lower than guidelines which rank lower than policy. And
410:
177:
117:
74:
406:
280:
571:
already taken into account, and the determination was that radio stations
685:
332:
301:
169:
517:
good issues to survive deletion review.) In this case, I stand by
218:
So every one is notable? Even campus radio stations, for example?
755:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
468:
66:
58:
529:. Address any of those, and I'll reconsider my position.
396:. It is not clear to me if this applies in these cases.
505:! It does (generally) reflect a growing concensus, but
634:." -- I beg to differ, it's not even the final word on
151:
147:
143:
100:
96:
92:
657:of prior AFD's are neither binding nor convincing.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
199:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (TV and radio stations)
563:policies about which people can and do genuinely
765:). No further edits should be made to this page.
636:the specific radio stations that were nominated
432:that particular precedent statement, so I know
8:
641:"The determination was that radio stations
453:what the precedent statement expresses.
449:the established AFD precedent, and that
281:http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/amq?call=WEGO
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
525:, and even, as raised by Pan Dan,
24:
545:specifically about radio stations
632:on the matter of a radio station
553:on the matter of a radio station
503:neither final nor non-negotiable
392:You omitted the subsequent text
1:
229:Notability on Knowledge (XXG)
748:15:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
736:03:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
720:08:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
700:03:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
690:02:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
662:14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
622:00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
613:15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
597:00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
539:11:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
486:00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
476:11:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
458:07:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
418:01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
401:00:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
386:23:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
361:15:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
337:05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
306:05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
288:05:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
272:22:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
237:15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
223:22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
212:06:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
189:05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
53:00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
501:: Established precedent is
782:
617:See reply to Xtifr above.
413:beginning with W, either.
246:, there absolutely ought
758:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
580:the precedent in the
507:concensus can change
440:operations. It does
576:brought to bear in
559:sufficient to cite
630:is the final word
551:is the final word
244:Conditional delete
628:on radio stations
549:on radio stations
773:
760:
547:, the precedent
256:reliable sources
159:
141:
108:
90:
34:
781:
780:
776:
775:
774:
772:
771:
770:
769:
763:deletion review
756:
626:"The precedent
537:
270:
132:
116:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
779:
777:
768:
767:
751:
750:
738:
722:
705:
704:
703:
702:
680:
679:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
639:
601:
600:
599:
586:radio stations
533:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
464:
389:
388:
363:
342:
341:
340:
339:
327:
320:
319:
311:
310:
309:
308:
293:
292:
291:
290:
266:
240:
239:
225:
215:
214:
166:
165:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
778:
766:
764:
759:
753:
752:
749:
746:
742:
739:
737:
734:
730:
726:
723:
721:
718:
714:
710:
707:
706:
701:
698:
693:
692:
691:
688:
687:
682:
681:
676:
673:
672:
663:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
615:
614:
611:
606:
602:
598:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
497:
487:
484:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
465:
461:
460:
459:
456:
452:
448:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
391:
390:
387:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
344:
343:
338:
335:
334:
328:
324:
323:
322:
321:
316:
313:
312:
307:
304:
303:
297:
296:
295:
294:
289:
286:
282:
278:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
238:
235:
230:
226:
224:
221:
217:
216:
213:
210:
205:
200:
196:
193:
192:
191:
190:
187:
183:
179:
174:
171:
163:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
757:
754:
740:
724:
708:
684:
674:
654:
650:
646:
642:
635:
631:
627:
604:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
514:
510:
502:
498:
450:
446:
441:
437:
433:
429:
393:
378:
374:
370:
345:
331:
314:
300:
276:
259:
247:
243:
204:demonstrable
203:
194:
181:
175:
167:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
717:Vegaswikian
709:Strong Keep
511:only policy
176:Let me add
733:NTXweather
590:particular
438:unlicensed
379:end debate
184:for this.
50:Cbrown1023
697:Akihabara
651:arguments
473:Akihabara
463:notable."
424:Akihabara
411:call sign
398:Akihabara
220:Akihabara
186:Akihabara
178:WEAF (AM)
118:WEAF (AM)
655:outcomes
647:outcomes
565:disagree
519:WP:LOCAL
285:Eastmain
258:, so it
252:WP:LOCAL
209:Eastmain
162:View log
111:View log
729:Bearcat
713:Bearcat
675:comment
659:Pan Dan
619:Bearcat
610:Pan Dan
594:Bearcat
578:setting
561:general
555:. It's
527:WP:CORP
499:Comment
483:Bearcat
455:Bearcat
434:exactly
415:Bearcat
383:Bearcat
367:WP:AFDP
358:Pan Dan
354:WP:CORP
315:neutral
277:Comment
260:must go
234:Pan Dan
182:neutral
135:protect
130:history
84:protect
79:history
745:Addhoc
741:Delete
407:a page
377:, and
373:Ergo,
348:under
346:Delete
139:delete
88:delete
605:these
582:first
531:Xtifr
523:WP:RS
430:write
264:Xtifr
156:views
148:watch
144:links
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
727:per
725:Keep
711:per
569:were
535:tälk
515:very
469:WPPJ
375:keep
365:Per
350:WP:N
268:tälk
195:Keep
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
67:WEGO
59:WEGO
686:DGG
588:in
557:not
442:not
352:or
333:DGG
302:DGG
248:not
170:DGG
160:- (
109:- (
731:.
715:.
643:do
573:do
521:,
451:is
447:is
369::
283:--
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
48:.
164:)
158:)
120:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.