Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBSC (AM)

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 keep. (Essentially) withdrawn  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WBSC (AM)[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to have ever been any sources establishing notability and it apparently went off the air in 2012 [1]. I am One of Many (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as broadcast radio stations have been found generally notable (like geographic locations and significant highways) and notability is not temporary. That a station has stopped broadcasting does not retroactively remove its service to the community. - Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply being a radio station does not warrant a "speedy keep" as such articles are not inherently notable. The key part of saying "generally notable" means there will be articles which are not notable, and this one has not shown that it falls under that "generally notable" category. Notability must be established, and this article fails to do so. - SudoGhost 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as Dravecky mentions, broadcast radio stations, especially federally licensed ones with 10,000 watt transmitters such as this one are generally notable and this one doesn't look to be any different. Interesting that they were fined for lack of EAS compliance as well. Based on FCC records the station was active for at least 5 years and probably more than that. Notability is not temporary.--RadioFan (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Dravecky. Levdr1lp / talk 00:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Per Dravecky. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination: I came across WBSC when I was checking out a user (spammer) with a name that included WBSC. When my search turn up this station only on Wikipedia, I couldn't find anything about it (except the link I provided above), and that it did not exist very long, I treated it like other businesses and brought it here. From now on, I'll treat any radio or television station is notable.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (See below) Delete - The article does not meet a single notability guideline, and that other related articles are "generally notable" isn't a reason to keep this one as Wikipedia consensus has long established that notability is not inherent; "it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable." That such articles are "generally notable" means nothing; notability must be established, and "generally" means there will be articles which are not notable. Unless sources can be found, this appears to be one of those articles. - SudoGhost 01:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per Dravecky and WP:OUTCOMES/MEDIA. Nate • (chatter) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your arguement contradicts itself. You say that no one is suggesting that radio station articles aren't kept, but then you do just that. This falls under the Cake Arguement, you can't have it and eat it. You can't say the articles are generally kept, but this one shouldn't be. Doesn't work that way, it's one or the other. But with established strong consensus, and a very poor arguement from you, you are delaying the inevitable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't strawman my comments, because you're arguing against something I did not say. That such articles are generally kept does not mean that every such article is kept. That is what "generally" means. There is no "established strong consensus" unless you're referring to WP:ORGSIG, which directly contradicts the speedy keep rationales; not a single "speedy keep" argument has any basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policy, so if "generally notable" is the only rationale you can give, don't expect this AfD to close as a keep, as consensus is determined by arguments based on policies and guidelines. - SudoGhost 05:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There will be no "speedy keep" here as long as there is at least one valid delete comment. This AfD needs to play out its seven days (unless the keepers manage to convince SG he's wrong and no other delete-sayers come along). LadyofShalott 03:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even with the original nominator having withdrawn their concerns about this article, it's best to let this AFD run its course, if just to avoid a renomination. RadioFan (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To clarify why I gave a delete rationale: not a single one of the "speedy keep" comments are based on any Wikipedia policy or guideline, including the relevant notability guidelines. The keep rationales given say that this article should be kept because radio station articles are "generally kept". This is true, however that has no bearing on why this article specifically should be kept. That such articles are "generally kept" of course means that there are articles that are not kept, and that these articles must show notability. This is reflected by WP:BCAST. Arguments have been put forth on my talk page that radio station articles are "inherently notable", but this is directly contradicted by Wikipedia consensus; WP:ORGSIG specifically points out that no organization is inherently notable, no matter what kind of organization it is. This includes radio stations. So the argument that such articles are "generally kept" does not warrant keeping this article, as that is nothing more than commentary about the overall concept of radio station articles, not a justification for this particular article. An article needs to show notability, not ride the coattails of articles with actual notability. When the "radio stations are inherently notable" fallacy is discarded and this article is looked at on its own merits as it should be, it becomes quickly apparent that it fails to meet any relevant notability guideline. - SudoGhost 05:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We make the notability guidelines, and in recent years, I think we have always accepted articles on genuine broadcast stations. For all practical purposes, that's a guideline. That it is no longer broadcasting is irrelevant--we're an encyclopedia, not a directory of current stations. We are not well served by debating cases like this--the more classes of things we accept as a matter of course, the more time we have to improve articles on them. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have updated the WBSC (AM) page with a ton of information backed by a slew of sources. I am waiting on an editor to get back to me about another source (trying to find a free source for a legal document), so there will be more added in the next 24 hours. Though, what is there more than meets the GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added additional sources, done a bit of clean-up, and found that WBSC was one of the stations that were the focus of the 2008 documentary Losing Their Voices about the plight of local radio stations. - Dravecky (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the article has been expanded and references have been added (I didn't see any of those when I looked initially) it does appear to meet the notability requirements at WP:BCAST and WP:ORGSIG. Not by much, but enough. It's been expanded to the point that it would warrant a DYK if found appropriate, and though I don't think it's a strong case for notability, it's enough that I would rather not have it miss a DYK just because of an ongoing AfD. - SudoGhost 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is amazing, good job. When I nominated it, I thought it would be a completely non-controversial delete along the lines of SudoGhost's reasoning. When I saw the immediate responses, I was a little embarrassed about having nominated it, but now I'm glad I did, because we now have an interesting article, which could be DYK if we knew a little more about its role in the community. I am One of Many (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2013 (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/WBSC_(AM)&oldid=1138735007"