Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KWDC-LP

Add links
From 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.  JGHowes  talk 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KWDC-LP

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

KWDC-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded Redirect was reverted without rationale or improvement. Does not meet WP:BCAST. Onel5969 TT me 02:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third, under WP:NMEDIA (also called BCAST), which they wrongly quote, this article does meet the notability standard. It has a valid and current FCC (US) or CRTC (Canada) license. It carries it's own programming and not solely that of a network source (ie: K-LOVE, Air1, CBC, APTN, etc.). It can be verified as "on the air" (this one is sometimes difficult, especially for low-power FMs). Triple checkmark. That's notable under NMEDIA.
I'm requesting that this AfD be Speedy Kept and Closed and onel5969 admonished for completely ignoring NMEDIA or not even reading it and completely lying on this very AfD, for the reason for this AfD (ie: claiming it was a dePROD when it was a unredirect). Completely ridiculous behavior from a decade+ user who should more than know better. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Further history of the station was added. This with sources from the college's own newspaper and the local Stockton newspaper (which is owned by Gannett). Apparently KWDC's history gets a little tangled with since-deleted Stockton-based LPFM-er KXVS.
I have also continued to try and discuss this AfD with the OP to no avail. They are either not listening to what I have to say or ignoring my posts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or restore as a redirect. "Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers, are not presumed non-notable just because they primarily serve a university or college student population, but are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other media outlet." - My italics. Also, "For instance, even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years." Again my italics. I see no evidence for notability under these guidelines, WP:BCAST. However, I do note, "A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves.". Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexandermcnabb: First off, this is not a Class D (not counting translators), as those aren't even issued anymore, as full-power broadcast stations. Second, this station's coverage area allows it to be heard across almost all of Stockton with ease. According to the 2010 Census, Stockton had a population of 291,707 people. I think they are targeting just a little bit more than "the university or college student population".
Under NMEDIA, for a radio station to be deemed notable it must pass a three question test. First, does it have an active FCC (US) or CRTC (Canada) license? This one does. Second, does it carry it's own programming and not solely that of a network source (ie: K-LOVE, Air1, CBC, APTN, etc.). Yes, this can be confirmed. Third, can it be verified as "on the air"? Again, yes. If a triple yes, then it is notable and passes NMEDIA. Simple as that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NMEDIA is not an accepted notability guideline, and with good reason it seems. The article has either no or one independent, reliable source about the station (I don't get results for the article from The Record, but that may be a GDPR issue), and fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: This is The Record article and here is one from the college's The Collegian newspaper. This video of the station's launch is by a completely different station, KDRT-LP out of Davis, California. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The Record link leads me to the homepage (like I said, probably because I try to access this from Europe), so I accept this one AGF. The Collegian is not an independent source, the student newspaper for a college reporting on the student radio for a college. And the DCTV source is, as far as the description allows, some "community TV site", basically a TV Wiki where everyone from the region can post a short video of what interests them (well, it presumably is curated so that only "acceptable" videos are posted), which hardly makes this a reliable source or a source indicating notability. So, all in all, one article from the local newspaper. Fram (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Ah, I was not familiar with the GDPR acronym. My apologizes there. Once you said "Europe" it made perfect sense. :) Side rant: That whole thing doesn't make sense to me, why can't Europeans view our websites because of some regulation? It's a news site! They can view Facebook, it's from the US, but not a newspaper? Makes no sense. /side rant
Anyway, there are a couple other articles from The Collegian and a crosspost from what used to be KXVS-LP, now an online streamer. But, I didn't feel the need to overload with too many Collegian sources and the KXVS-LP post is from that station's official Facebook. So, not the best source. :( I consider the local newspaper having even one article about any radio station, not alone an LPFM, a win in my book. :) But, in the great scheme of things where this is still considered non-notable, I'll take it. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the only criteria are license + original programming + on the air, a station would be notable as soon as it gets a license and someone says "hi" on the air, and before it would've received any independent coverage at all. That doesn't seem like a great recipe to determine what should be included in an encyclopedia. That said, I don't see any reason why it should be deleted if there's an obvious parent article to merge to (San Joaquin Delta College). The content is not problematic such that the history needs to be deleted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: No. One can not just say "Hi." and it be considered independent programming. This, from KFFP-LP in Portland, Oregon, is considered independent programming. That is worthy of inclusion. If it is just 3ABN or K-LOVE simulcasting with a Top-Of-The-Hour ID from the station itself, that is not independent programming and is not worthy of inclusion and would be a complete redirect. Only rare examples like WPLJ or WAIW (FM) would exempt a page from this, since it has a prior history. But WSRD-LP, an LPFM out of Albany, Georgia or KUDU out of Tok, Alaska, these have always been affiliates of LifeTalk Radio, so they will always be redirects. Does that better help you understand NMEDIA? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what is "worthy of inclusion" - says who? I don't mean that flippantly, but a question. Notability guidelines typically defer to the sources to determine what's worthy of note rather than just what the subject is or has done. Most of the time something like "has received a Grammy Award" doesn't grant notability because of the fact of a Grammy but because winning a Grammy means you'll be the subject of enough in-depth reliable independent sourcing to write a good, neutral article. There are a small number of SNGs like PROF that operate according to fact rather than source coverage, but those kinds of exceptions are rare and hard defended these days. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no clear consensus at this stage. WP:NMEDIA does not appear to be an accepted subject notability guideline, hence I have a hard time grasping why it is even being cited at all (either as a criteria for deletion or for keeping). Even if it were an acceptable criterion, it would still be overridden by GNG. Few comments deal with this issue specifically. More discussion on available sources and how they show (or do not show) notability is warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: As has been stated repeatedly, NMEDIA has community concensus through WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, the consensus that NMEDIA is considered part of N and GNG. I should note that GNG, a subset of N, is a guideline, just like NMEDIA. So, if we are going to consider it a "not accepted guideline" just because it's a "guideline", the same would go for GNG and N because those are "guidelines" too. This is not about NMEDIA, it's about KWDC-LP.
Now, about KWDC-LP, as I have stated previously, the article has 3 references from outside reliable third-party sources, per RS. This is 2 newspaper articles (one local, one university) and one YouTube video (from an outside source, KDRT-LP) that shows the first broadcast of the station (highly notable). It has the standard numerous FCC, REC, and Arbitron sources (which are required under NMEDIA, GNG, and V) to source all the other basic information. The article has 9 sources total. This is more than enough for NMEDIA, GNG, V, and N. Article is classed as a Start, which 9 sources is more than plenty for a Start Class article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMES has "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.", so no, that is not an accepted guideline either. In any case, even if NMEDIA were somehow community consensus, the overarching criteria is GNG, and I see very little about that here. If the discussion ends up being one side claiming "meets NMEDIA" and the other "fails GNG", then any reasonable closer should give precedence to the "fails GNG" arguments - this is common practice in other areas, where a marginal pass of the SNG (for example, WP:NSPORTS) is often disregarded if the subject does not actually meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Novem Linguae: Technically you are correct. It is a "explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline", but it is still technically itself a guideline...or if you wish, a guideline of a guideline. A sub-guideline. Regardless, if we are dismissing NMEDIA as "not acceptable", then we are dismissing the entirety of N, of which GNG is a part of. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno. The template for it says This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I thought guidelines had to go through an RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x3 (now somewhat obsolete given the last two comments above :) ) - Guideline status ("guideline" in the sense of WP:PAG rather than the general usage) is the mark of a authority/broad consensus. BCASTOUTCOMES is an essay, and NMEDIA is an essay (the supplement style of essay), which do not require any broad consensus and don't have the standing of those that have been promoted to guideline.
The article has 9 sources, but only one of them is the kind of source that's any help for GNG (The Record). The rest are databases, connected to the subject, etc. I haven't !voted yet, but as much as I love LP radio stations I'm worried about the assertion of this kind of coverage as uncontroversial proof of notability. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tired (it's 3a EDT). OK, Novem Linguae, Rhododendrites: You are more than welcome to file an RfC on NMEDIA, that's the spirit of PAG. That is not what this AfD is about. It's about KWDC-LP. Why EVERYONE is trying to make it about NMEDIA or BCASTOUTCOMES, I don't know. But let me make something clear.
When you do, it's going to be a shitstorm. Dravecky's legacy will be lost, which will be a very sad day. WP:WPRS will be gone, there will be no point in it. Thousands of articles will be deleted. Tens of thousands of work hours will be lost. Hundreds, maybe a thousand or two, of DYKs will be gone. 83 Class B articles. 1 Class A article. 12 GAs (and more waiting in the wind) gone. 1...yes, ONE!...FA which took 2 years and made the local paper, will be gone. All this because of, what basically amounts to, IDONTLIKEIT. Even worse, is this will carry over to WP:TVS. The TV station articles will be deleted as well and for the same reasons. They fall under NMEDIA too. Newspapers, internet channels, hell even SiriusXM could be deleted per that RfC.
But it gets worse, the editors who have worked so very hard on these articles over the years, they have nothing left to do. Their work, what they have spent time on for years, will be all for naught. We will lose probably 50 to 75 great editors, myself included.
So, yes, I'm upset. Yes, I'm taking this personally. I've put far too much time and work into this project to have it destroyed now. But I'm more upset that people can't stay on task long enough to decide about KWDC-LP without going "hey look, a bunny" and veering wildly off course to talk about NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES as if it's part of the AfD too. It's not. I'm a custodian for an elementary school and I have 6 year olds who can hold their attention for longer than that....and they've seen bunnies. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either there are indeed thousands of articles which fail WP:GNG and are only kept because of NMEDIA, or (more likely) the vast majority of these articles will be kept anyway as they are about notable subjects, and only the minority which was incorrectly protected by NMEDIA may be deleted. Nearly all votes, including yours, referenced NMEDIA, it is very much part of this AfD, and it isn't a generally accepted guideline. Fram (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: With all due respect (and I do alot as an editor and an admin), it's not just me, it's everyone who agrees with me. But when the RfC comes, we'll see who is right. Me (and by extension NMEDIA/BCASTOUTCOMES/community consensus) or a couple edits who DONTLIKEIT. We'll see. Like I said, it's gonna be a shitstorm. Pack a parka and some galoshes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to raise NMEDIA to a guideline, feel free to start an RfC. No idea why it should be a shitstorm and not just a civil, normal discussion, unless you intend to turn it into a shitstorm if such a discussion doesn't go the way you like. I see no reason for me to start an RfC to confirm that it isn't a guideline though, that's not what RfCs are for. But when people point out that just having one GNG-acceptable source (and a rather local one at that) is not sufficient to meet the GNG, it seems to me that you are wrong to dismiss this simply as DONTLIKEIT votes. Fram (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram: Why would I start an RfC on something that has had community consensus (ie: BCASTOUTCOMES, that was built from these very AfDs) and NMEDIA just being understood as being part of N. For more than a decade people just understood N = Notable. NMEDIA = Also notable. Life went on. Only now, on an AfD for a low-power FM in Stockton, does the community question it....and 15 years later?! I say 15 cause it was a thing before I got here and I've been here 15 years. So, no, I will be making no RfC on something that has been just fine for 15 years. Don't break what ain't broken.
I have zero intentions of making any RfC a shitstorm. What I'm saying is it will become one. No one understands radio stations, TV stations, it's "useless information" and "non-notable", but look at BCASTOUTCOMES. Which, by the way, is part of WP:DEL. That's the entirety of our community consensus. That's 15+ years worth. That's notable. If we toss that out, I think that would cause a shitstorm. That would be precedence setting and will be used for other deletionists to delete articles en masse. We currently have 6,305,094 articles. Didn't we have north of 7 million?
I look at things logically. The path from a precedence setting RfC on radio and television station articles going very bad is that 6.3 million article number going down....and fast. Our good editor number will follow. Why break something that isn't broken and hasn't been for 15+ years?....and shouldn't be discussed in this very AfD. This is not the forum for this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reference to BCASTOUTCOMES on WP:DEL, so I don't get why you would call it "part of WP:DEL". We never had more than 7 million articles, we probably never had more articles than now (recently, a few thousand articles have been deleted, but that's about the biggest purge we've had in years). BCASTOUTCOMES is "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I highly doubt your apocalyptic view of the hordes of deletionists is realistic: such things didn't happen when e.g. SCHOOLOUTCOMES was changed, no one went around nominating hundreds or thousands of school articles. And no, NMEDIA is not part of N, it never was a guideline (unlike, say, NPROF or NSPORTS). Fram (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BCASTOUTCOMES, scroll up to the top. "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page." It's part of DEL.
NMEDIA, scroll up to the top. "This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Notability guideline." It's part of N.
This is an explanatory supplement to the ___ policy page/guideline. That means, it's part of that policy or guideline. Let's move on. Let's also discuss the article at hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every page can declare that they are an "explanatory supplement" to anything. If it isn't in WP:DEL or linked from WP:DEL, then it isn't "part of" WP:DEL. And the "explanatory supplement" box explicitly states that these are not guidelines and have not been vetted by the community. As for the article at hand: it has only one (relatively local) independent, reliable, indepth, non-ruotine source, so fails WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted or redirected. Fram (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has two sources, both local. One from the LOCAL Stockton commercial newspaper, the other from the LOCAL University newspaper. The other (third) is a YouTube video produced of the station's launch. That video was created by another radio station entirely and about 40 miles away from Stockton in Davis, California. A video that is highly notable because it shows the actual launch of the station itself. Something that is very rare.

But, I have reached the point where I don't care. I. Don't. Care. Do whatever. I don't care. I am walking away. Which is highly rare. I'm done fighting, I'm done arguing, I'm done trying to prove a very simple point. WPRS is yours to destroy. You all are so hellbent on doing so. Go for it! I. Don't. Care. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has two local sources, yes, but only one is independent. The local university newspaper is not an independent source for the local university radio. The Youtube video was already discussed above as well, it is from a community site where everyone may post videos (with a check that they are appropriate, but that's it). These are not the work of a journalist or published in a journalistic setting, this is a wiki-like project. "A video that is highly notable because it shows the actual launch of the station itself. Something that is very rare." That's not how notability works on enwiki. But all of this was already discussed above, no idea why we have to go through this again. And no idea why you get so worked up about an AfD about one local radio station. Fram (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies the whole reason for the explanatory supplement. Under the section "Why separate criteria", it states "...the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as 'advertising for the competition.' Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources."--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Onel5969 is using this very AfD to go on an AfD spree. What I said would happen, is already happening. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I see 6 Philippine radio station AFDs they started, but none of them use this AfD in any way (they don't reference it, they have no relation to it). Please don't make incorrect or hyperbolic accusations. Fram (talk) 08:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The station meets BCAST, and whether or not it is a vetted notability guideline, does a good job explaining why these types of articles have typically been kept per long precedent. I don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by its deletion, and per BCAST I do see it improved by its inclusion. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:23, 2 June 2021 (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/KWDC-LP&oldid=1027025909"