Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nongcun Guangbo
- 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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Nongcun Guangbo[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Nongcun Guangbo (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)
No source that can prove notability of this radio station B dash (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:BROADCAST, and possibly rename. If I read it correctly, Nongcun Guangbo means "rural broadcast", a general name that may not be the actual name of the radio station. Sources appear to be use Heilongjiang Country Broadcast or Heilongjiang Rural Radio depending on how you translate 黑龙江乡村广播 - [1][2], or Long Guang Country Station 龙广乡村台 [3] (this appears to be the official site, but needs checking as the article says 1020 AM while sources say 945 AM). Hzh (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 14:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. We do not routinely keep every article that merely claims that its topic exists as a radio station, but rather radio stations have to meet all four of four conditions to get articles: (1) they originate at least a portion of their own programming schedule in their own studios rather than existing purely as a rebroadcaster of another service, (2) they are licensed by the relevant regulatory authority rather than operating as a Part 15 or pirate station, (3) they are actually on the air and not just an unlaunched construction permit that exists only on paper, and (4) all three of those facts are reliably sourceable. We've had a lot of hoax articles created over the years about radio stations that didn't really exist, or that falsely claimed a license they didn't have or programming they didn't produce — so the notability test for a radio station is not just "the article says it exists", but "the article can be properly sourced as meeting all of the conditions for the notability of a radio station". And this is not properly sourced as meeting any of them. NMEDIA most certainly does not exempt a media outlet from having to be properly referenced to be considered notable. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- I gave links above that show that the station satisfy the conditions you mentioned, perhaps you should check those first? Hzh (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Those aren't reliable sources. They all represent the self-published content of the station and the company that owns it, and none of them represent independent coverage about it in sources independent of it. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are so many sources that mention various aspects of the station - e.g.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] I'm not sure what there is to question about the station. Hzh (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Every web page that exists with a radio station's name in it is not automatically a reliable or notability-supporting source. Almost every single one of those links is some form of primary sourcing, such as blogs, press releases from the company itself and/or organizations that it's directly affiliated with, or social networking platforms — which are types of sources that do not count as support for notability. Exactly zero of them represent the kind of reliable sourcing that is valid support for notability. Literally the only one that looks like it might be a real reliable source completely fails to mention this station at all — it's just very general coverage of a company which I'm presuming owns this station if you're adding it here, but neither it nor this article actually says that company owns this station at all. You're not showing the kind of solid sources that it takes to make a radio station notable — you're showing the kind of weak sources, mostly its own self-created content about itself, that don't make a radio station notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Blanket dismissal of such diverse sources is pointless because it is not clear on what basis you are dismissing them. The first one for example looks at the station in quite a bit of detail, and I haven't a clue as to why you dismiss it. Cumulatively they do suggest that the station is significant. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I dismiss the first source because it's not a reliable source media outlet; it's a press release distribution and advertising platform on which companies can and do freely redistribute their own self-written information about themselves. Unreliable and self-created sources cannot add up to "cumulative notability"; only reliable sources can do that. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- And you offered no evidence that it's press release, nor for any of the others. Hzh (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- And here's more [15][16][17][18] Hzh (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- A person can plainly verify that it's a press release, and not real journalism in a real media outlet, just by (a) looking at it, and (b) reading our article about the website it's on. I don't need to "prove" anything that's already self-evident. And these four new sources — three glancing namechecks of its existence in books that aren't about it and one academic dissertation about the general phenomenon of rural broadcasting in which this radio station's name fails to appear at all — are not notability boosters either. You're failing to understand the very real distinction between a source that is reliable and notability-building, and a source which is not — "reliable sourcing" is not the same thing as "any web page that exists at all". Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I dismiss the first source because it's not a reliable source media outlet; it's a press release distribution and advertising platform on which companies can and do freely redistribute their own self-written information about themselves. Unreliable and self-created sources cannot add up to "cumulative notability"; only reliable sources can do that. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Blanket dismissal of such diverse sources is pointless because it is not clear on what basis you are dismissing them. The first one for example looks at the station in quite a bit of detail, and I haven't a clue as to why you dismiss it. Cumulatively they do suggest that the station is significant. Hzh (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Every web page that exists with a radio station's name in it is not automatically a reliable or notability-supporting source. Almost every single one of those links is some form of primary sourcing, such as blogs, press releases from the company itself and/or organizations that it's directly affiliated with, or social networking platforms — which are types of sources that do not count as support for notability. Exactly zero of them represent the kind of reliable sourcing that is valid support for notability. Literally the only one that looks like it might be a real reliable source completely fails to mention this station at all — it's just very general coverage of a company which I'm presuming owns this station if you're adding it here, but neither it nor this article actually says that company owns this station at all. You're not showing the kind of solid sources that it takes to make a radio station notable — you're showing the kind of weak sources, mostly its own self-created content about itself, that don't make a radio station notable. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are so many sources that mention various aspects of the station - e.g.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] I'm not sure what there is to question about the station. Hzh (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- Those aren't reliable sources. They all represent the self-published content of the station and the company that owns it, and none of them represent independent coverage about it in sources independent of it. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
- I gave links above that show that the station satisfy the conditions you mentioned, perhaps you should check those first? Hzh (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:42, 28 July 2018 (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.