Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DZRI

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 delete. Functionally everyone agrees it meets BCAST, but no keep !voters have indicated it meets GNG. As such, this AfD has pivoted on whether an explanatory supplement that endeavours to carve out a partial SNG exception to the GNG (a la NPROF) is sufficient policy basis.

The phrasing of GNG indicates it applies without explicit exemption, and an explanatory supplement just does not have capability to grant that.

However, should NMEDIA be promoted to a guideline in any form similar to its current state, this article would immediately be eligible for re-creation as if soft-deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZRI[edit]

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

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from digging this up, which isn't much use (and DZRi only leads to redlinks), I couldn't find anything that would argue for keeping this. Fails GNG, doesn't pass 'Go', doesn't collect £200. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The station is licensed by the NTC as it indicates an operator having a station. It was initially issued a PA per 2019 NTC Listing. It was only last year's listing when it was given a callsign. There's a PIA article which indicates part of the station's programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BCAST per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Astig. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Superastig.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article fails WP:GNG. Simply meeting WP:BCAST cannot save the article, as it is not a SNG exempt from the GNG requirement - we need sources to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation, otherwise we'd just be a directory of radio stations, which also fails WP:NOT. Unfortunately, I can't find any, but perhaps my search has been too limited. SportingFlyer T·C 14:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NMEDIA is a notability recommendation. Notability guideline discussion to setup talking points for the RfC to make NMEDIA/BCAST a Guideline is ongoing at WT:N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's only a "recommendation," then it clearly must comply with WP:GNG, meaning we need reliable secondary sources in order to show it's eligible for a stand-alone article. Even if it becomes a guideline, the vast majority of guidelines either require the GNG to be met, are written in such a way that GNG will be met if the guideline is met, or provide even stricter guidance than merely meeting GNG, so having this become a guideline isn't really relevant for this discussion considering there aren't enough sources to justify a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NMEDIA doesn't reflect community consensus, so I'll simply apply the more sound GNG, which this article doesn't pass. (This, I note, does not appear to have been disputed.) Unless NMEDIA is endorsed by the community at an RfC, it doesn't present a valid reason to keep the article. (Carving out wide-ranging exceptions to the GNG is usually a bad idea, in my view.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 12 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/DZRI&oldid=1028210989"