Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One FM 94.0

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One FM 94.0[edit]

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

Small community radio station. PROD was removed by creator but no external references have subsequently been provided. Searches reveal no good refs to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not noteworthy for a stand alone article. Sourcing is a problem, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty references by the organizations that issue licenses and operate the station's broadcasting was included in the article. Also, relevant online media, such as website has been included. Reference to license number and actual existence included in the article. This article will grow as more information becomes available, such as listenership figures etc. Unless Velella lives in the area, it's a bit pre-mature to assume that the station is 'small'

MediaNowSA (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is rarely productive to challenge the competence of another editor without very good grounds - such claims can sometimes rebound on the claimant. The range of knowledge and skills possessed by Wikipedia editors can sometimes surprise the inexperienced. However this demonstrates the geographic area covered - which is small. The lack of any mention of radiated power, the lack of inclusion of this station in any of the standard listings of Radio stations in South Africa and its designation as a Community radio all suggest the correct epithet is "very small" . I erred on the side of caution and opted for "small". And do I know the area ? Yes I do. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The base notability claims that a radio station has to meet to pass WP:NMEDIA are that it is reliably sourceable as (a) having a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) originating at least some of its own programming in its own independent studios rather than operating as a pure rebroadcaster of another station. The size of the station's broadcast range is not part of the equation at all. This definitely needs a major quality overhaul, because it's lapsing into advertorial tone and contains entirely too much bad sourcing and entirely unsourced insider baseball, but the base criteria are met — and while the nominator is correct that most of the sourcing here is buffalo chips, Bizcommunity does clear the valid sourcing bar. Creator very likely has a conflict of interest of some kind, but that's not a dealbreaker in and of itself if the problems with the article are repairable. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- WP:NMEDIA is only an essay and not policy however, even adopting that as a guideline, what it actually says is " Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." and the mention of history is a reference to the earlier phrase "However, radio stations tend to have long histories ....". This station does not meet these criteria as it is very new. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of Wikipedia's notability criteria are essays or guidelines rather than "policy", as such — but that fact doesn't make them non-binding, because "that's only an essay" is an invalid AFD argument. And you're misinterpreting the criteria, to boot: new radio stations are not excluded from Wikipedia because new, as a station's broadcast history is "established" the moment it signs on for its inaugural broadcast. That criterion was and is meant only to exclude permanent articles about stations that were given a license but for some reason never actually made it to air at all and thus had their licenses expire unbuilt, and not to impose a "radio stations do not get articles until they've been broadcasting for a certain specific minimum period of time" condition. If a radio station is reliably sourceable as meeting the two conditions, having a broadcast license and originating at least some of its own programming, then it has established its broadcast history, and is permanently notable, the moment its transmitter is actually transmitting a signal. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that that is not what WP:MEDIA says. That may be your interpretation, but that is not what the words mean to me. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was directly involved in the writing of NMEDIA — so I'm not just expressing an "interpretation" or an "opinion", but stating the plain and simple facts of what the document was designed to say and mean and communicate. The document may obviously need to be reworded for improved clarity, as policy and guideline documents often do, if you're getting something different out of it than what was intended — but I'm completely correct on the facts of how it's meant to be understood, because I was there for the original discussions: the intended meaning of "establishment" was "set up and operating", not "has distinguished itself as an especially elite member of its class of topic". Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your expertise, but the guidance is the guidance as written which is what we work to, whether poorly drafted or not. The example given "....even a 10-watt station belonging to a high school may be notable, if it's in a fight to keep the grandfathered Class D license with which it's been broadcasting for thirty years." makes is quite clear what "established " is intended to mean here. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and the definition of "established" that I gave is the definition of "established" that it fits. And if there's a gap between a notability guideline's intentions and one reader's interpretation of it, that does not give the reader's interpretation a trump card over the intention just because it's possible to read it that way — "the guidance is the guidance as written" does not imbue your position with the crown of righteousness just because you choose one potential interpretation over another of what's written, when both interpretations flow equally directly from "the guidance as written". It's not as if I'm making up some weird personal definition of "established" here — it's a standard real-world definition of the word, and it's the one that was intended, so the fact that the word also happens to have a more restrictive definition does not automatically make you right and me wrong about what NMEDIA means "as written". Guidelines can, in fact, be reworded and rewritten for clarity when necessary, such as when a reader misinterprets the intention or when other new considerations come along. So until such time as a consensus can be established that your interpretation should become the new rule going forward, the meaning of "established" that was intended by the drafters of the document, and has always been the consensus position until now, trumps the more restrictive definitions that some editors might choose to apply. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final Relist -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:14, 15 August 2016 (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.