Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tianjin Xinwen 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 delete. Sandstein 15:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tianjin Xinwen Guangbo[edit]

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

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We keep radio stations. Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Broadcast_media and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually, a full reading is not "we keep radio stations". It is "we keep radio stations if they can be demonstrated to be notable". And even the full existence is not so demonstrated here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eastmain is incorrect about how NMEDIA works — 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) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fundamentally limited in my BEFORE check by language difficulties, but the following two sources might be helpful to someone who can better use some keywords to seek the info they need. Outline of Tianjin News Communication History & China Radio and Television Yearbook. There aren't any references by name (in the bit I've seen) to let me confidently say that the existence/licenses mentioned actually belong to this specific radio station. Lots of programming mentioned but even less that gives tangential connection. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2018 (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.