Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBGU (FM)

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WBGU (FM)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article includes a large component of text from a nonfree website. It's been tagged as OTRS pending since 2009; such a long period of time since tagging is a good indication that no permission is really forthcoming, so this is likely to be a copyvio. Not a blatant enough case for a speedy, but blatant enough to delete at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a legitimate broadcast radio station, and a Google Books search shows coverage. If Nyttend has identified likely copyvios, then the solution is clear. If Nyttend can verify copypvio, then Nyttend should remove that content from the article, trimming it to a stub if necessary. The article can then be improved through normal editing. Deleting a article about an actual notable radio station is not a good solution to the article's shortcomings. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would seem to this untrained editor that a radio station would be considered notable. Therefore, the logical solution would be to remove the offending material. Joefridayquaker (talk) 04:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Purge everything but the infobox I don't care how notable it is. If it's been stewing in copyvio for two years, it needs to be rebuilt from scratch. I'd still rather see it built from scratch though... Sven Manguard Wha? 04:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a rewrite candidate because the current version sounds like a copyvio brochure, but FCC licensed and notable. In fact, it should be taken down to a stub with frequency, infobox and format. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an FCC-licensed broadcast radio station. I've taken a hatchet to the prose in question (station history) to eliminate any copyvio concerns (which are a matter for cleanup, not AfD) and upgraded the infobox and its contents. - Dravecky (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per Nate and Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: As a licensed broadcast station, notability was never in question, and the copyvio concerns have now been addressed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is an FCC-licensed station. Keep infobox and history. Get rid of the list of station personnel, please! I hate seeing that crap on articles! --Fightingirish (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (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.