Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBQK

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The result was withdrawn. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WBQK

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

Non-notable internet station. I may be wrong that it is an internet station, but that is what a search told me. There are no gnews hits, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. Other than that, all a search turned up for this station is are sites that list links to the station. Directory site do not make something notable. Lastly, take note when discussing here that notability is not inherited. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the above, withdrawn per below. Here is a diff of me doing so.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doesn't appear to be an internet only radio station. And I think we usually keep licensed radio stations. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how becoming licensed makes it notable.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being in the Olympics in and of itself makes someone notable. But I try to follow consensus. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, it's not an internet station but a 4000 watt FM terrestrial station that also simulcasts on the internet. Even if it was an internet-only station, it still could be notable. For the nom's second rationale for deletion - "There are no gnews hits" - that's false. It has gnews hits under its current call letters and under it's former call letters WPTG [1][2] (I found the first article by the link above provided by the nom.) --Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, I did not provide the link above, it is auto-loaded by a template/preload setup. When I did my original gnews search, it came up with nothing. However, I based this search on the call-sign depicted in a logo. I must have not seen that they were different.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. General consensus has been to keep the licensed AM/FM stations. Mr Radio Guy !!! 02:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade and MrRadioGuy. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and comment A licensed radio station serving fringe portions of the Richmond and Hampton Roads markets and which likely has a loyal audience, and because all radio stations are notable. I'm also growing concerned with how Daedalus969 is coming to the conclusion several obviously notable articles should have AfD's; for instance a nom on Monday regarding the obvious box office hit film Kangaroo Jack. I'm afraid that he either needs to read the guidelines for notability and bringing nominations, or he should brush up on his research skills, or (judging from the last few edits this article has received) needs to learn better ways to build consensus (asking for a speedy of this article because of an image license conflict is not a proper action in the least). Daedalus, you've been around a long time and you should know better. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: FCC licensed station, long standing keep is consensus.--Milowent (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per above and speedy deleting this would open up a can of worms to delete other radio station articles. FCC license says its notable.--milonica (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I could not find any independent sources that would support an article. It might well be the case that there is a consensus that licensed radio stations are notable, but then without independent source there is nothing we can write about a notable subjects. Pantherskin (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you could not find the independent sources shown above, that doesn't mean they don't exist. The Daily Press is independent of the article topic.--Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to withdraw this, but per the above delete vote, I can no longer do such. I am not allowed to withdraw as long as there is an unstricken delete vote. However, I will post by opinion of withdrawing it above and below, so that when all delete votes are stricken, it can be withdrawn.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken, feel free to withdraw. Note that I still stand by my point, without any significant coverage there should be no article on this radio station (I would prefer to combine this station with other similar stations in a list). But obviously there is no chance that this article will be deleted, so to make things easier I have stricken my "vote". Pantherskin (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're kidding me right? [3] [4] [5] I would think links from the FCC and Arbitron hold more water than most links on Wikipedia, just saying. Why don't we delete other radio station articles eh? --milonica (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdawn - I wasn't aware of any such consensus concerning licensed radio stations being notable. When I looked up the relevant guidelines, I didn't see anything that had been made applicable about radio stations, except for an essay which had not been accepted yet. That aside, I withdraw per the already formulated consensus referenced. This note is for when all delete votes are stricken.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Snow keep. Call signs, format changes, and ownership changes over the years can be verified through newspaper searches. (As a side note, more than 100 UHF TV stations went out of business in the 1950s, and virtually nothing is known about many of these stations. Nothing was documented or preserved, and television historians have lamented this major loss to early television history. I'm so glad WP is around, because despite the occasional deletion, it is preserving broadcasting content for future generations). Firsfron of Ronchester 08:07, 9 December 2009 (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.