Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KUNP-LP
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. KrakatoaKatie 11:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] KUNP-LP
A TV station that only ever existed on paper, it would seem - or maybe it was emitting something in 1997? Anyway, it's not clear how this is in any way notable - there's no claim to notability, at any rate. The external link from 2001 requires registration, which I'm not about to do for this. Contested PROD. Sandstein 19:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Withdrawn. I still don't see how a TV station is automatically notable for being a TV station, where e.g. a restaurant isn't automatically notable for being a restaurant under WP:CORP, but at least it reads like an encyclopedia article now. Thanks for the cleanup! Sandstein 05:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- This station should be kept. It was bought by Fisher Communications in January 2006. Radio Station World lists it as a Telefutura affiliate [1], as does Univision [2]. At the very least, it might be a translator worthy of a redirect to its primary, but it is the only Telefutura affiliate in the Idaho Falls/Pocatello market, and is therefore, notable. dhett 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: Fisher Broadcasting sure seems to think that it's notable. [3] Strong keep recommendation. dhett 03:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I've slightly reformatted your comment to make it more legible.) OK, but I don't quite see how this translates into notability per WP:CORP. Your links merely indicate that this radio station a) has been registered as such and b) has some physical antennas on a hill somewhere. The Fisher Broadcasting report just certifies that it meets certain radiation standards; it doesn't say anything about notability. WP:CORP requires that "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself", excluding trivial coverage such as in the first links. How does KUNP-LP meet this standard? Sandstein 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Licensed and operational television stations have always met the standard of notability. Please refer to KTFL deletion proposal for standards on notability of broadcast facilities. The inclusion of the TV station in Radio Station World and Univision establishes multiple non-trivial published works independent of the company/corporation, meeting even your standards, which are far more stringent. (Univision does not own the station.) In addition, the station is listed by the FCC as having been licensed since 2001. Apart from a personal testimony that the station is actually broadcasting Telefutura programming on UHF channel 24 in Pocatello, Idaho, I'm not sure how much more proof you can get that this station is operating and as such, merits inclusion into WikiPedia. There are many other stations included in Wikipedia with less documentation than KUNP-LP has. What I think we'll both agree on is that the KUNP-LP article as it stands is of poor quality and is based on long-outdated information - once this proceeding is complete, I plan to update and expand the article. dhett 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have to disagree on the notability issue. Neither WP:TVS nor the AfD you referred to indicate any general community-wide consensus that TV stations are per se notable, as opposed to other corporations. The sources you provide only list the station in a table of stations. This is utterly trivial coverage under WP:CORP ("Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories"), leaving aside the question whether these are reliable suorces under WP:RS at all. Being licenced by the FCC isn't a notability criterion, multiple substantial coverage by reliable sources is (see in general: WP:N). Finally, I'm afraid your personal testimony isn't allowed under WP:RS, and at any rate it's immaterial whether they broadcast anything. If no-one has bothered to write anything of substance about this station, they're still nonnotable. Sandstein 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't offering "personal testimony" - just using it as an example. Broadcast stations licensed in the US by the FCC or in other countries by their equivalent have always been accepted as notable in the English Wikipedia, either for standalone articles, or, as in the case of translators, for redirects to primary stations;. Using your standards would probably eliminate a good 50%-60% of US TV station articles already in Wikipedia due to the number of low-power television stations. Your arguments under WP:RS and WP:N are unconvincing, as the former has no specific guidelines that apply to broadcast television and the latter relies on precedent as a standard, precedent which overwhelmingly favors keeping the article. Your citation under WP:CORP also does not apply, as the FCC has published several documents concerning this station. Here's what I propose: let's keep the article, then post your argument to WT:TVS. If they go along with it, I will too, and will personally nominate the article again for deletion. But you're going against years of precedent here and taking up more space than the original article ever did in the first place. I don't know what kind of personal crusade you're on with this or why you think that your idea of notability trumps that which has been accepted until now, but I recommend that you leave this article as is and take up your cause with the TelevisionStationsProject group. dhett 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let's see what some other people think around here, first. General AfD is the proper forum for notability discussions, not some specialised group, and I've yet to be convinced that the established precedent you mention does in fact exist. Contrary to your impression, I'm not on a crusade against anything and have in fact never before (I believe) edited anything TV-related - I just happened to stumble over a run-of-the-mill corporate article with no assertion of notability, and here we are. I'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith in your co-contributors. Thanks. Sandstein 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Your vehemence surprises me, especially in regards to a project in which you've had no dealings before. My "personal crusade" comment was not an assumption of bad faith, but rather a commentary on your insistence. Nevertheless, it has apparently offended you, and so for that, I do apologize. You might wish to consult WP:AAGF next time before citing WP:AGF so quickly. Also, please understand that broadcast entities do not fit well into your "run-of-the-mill corporate" template, especially when it comes to low-power broadcast. A low-power Telefutura station is not the same as a neighborhood McDonalds, and I'm not sure if any low-power television station or even any small-market full-power television station meets your "multiple substantial coverage by reliable sources" criterion for notability, which by the way, is not an established standard for notability. But low-power television stations are notable, as are full-power stations in small markets. As for the article's lack of assertion of notability, I've already covered that: it's a poorly-sourced, poorly-written article, but the answer is to improve the article, not to delete it. If I didn't think I could improve it, I wouldn't be contesting the AfD recommendation. dhett 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, let's see what some other people think around here, first. General AfD is the proper forum for notability discussions, not some specialised group, and I've yet to be convinced that the established precedent you mention does in fact exist. Contrary to your impression, I'm not on a crusade against anything and have in fact never before (I believe) edited anything TV-related - I just happened to stumble over a run-of-the-mill corporate article with no assertion of notability, and here we are. I'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith in your co-contributors. Thanks. Sandstein 20:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't offering "personal testimony" - just using it as an example. Broadcast stations licensed in the US by the FCC or in other countries by their equivalent have always been accepted as notable in the English Wikipedia, either for standalone articles, or, as in the case of translators, for redirects to primary stations;. Using your standards would probably eliminate a good 50%-60% of US TV station articles already in Wikipedia due to the number of low-power television stations. Your arguments under WP:RS and WP:N are unconvincing, as the former has no specific guidelines that apply to broadcast television and the latter relies on precedent as a standard, precedent which overwhelmingly favors keeping the article. Your citation under WP:CORP also does not apply, as the FCC has published several documents concerning this station. Here's what I propose: let's keep the article, then post your argument to WT:TVS. If they go along with it, I will too, and will personally nominate the article again for deletion. But you're going against years of precedent here and taking up more space than the original article ever did in the first place. I don't know what kind of personal crusade you're on with this or why you think that your idea of notability trumps that which has been accepted until now, but I recommend that you leave this article as is and take up your cause with the TelevisionStationsProject group. dhett 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'll have to disagree on the notability issue. Neither WP:TVS nor the AfD you referred to indicate any general community-wide consensus that TV stations are per se notable, as opposed to other corporations. The sources you provide only list the station in a table of stations. This is utterly trivial coverage under WP:CORP ("Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report extended shopping hours or the publications of telephone numbers and addresses in business directories"), leaving aside the question whether these are reliable suorces under WP:RS at all. Being licenced by the FCC isn't a notability criterion, multiple substantial coverage by reliable sources is (see in general: WP:N). Finally, I'm afraid your personal testimony isn't allowed under WP:RS, and at any rate it's immaterial whether they broadcast anything. If no-one has bothered to write anything of substance about this station, they're still nonnotable. Sandstein 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Licensed and operational television stations have always met the standard of notability. Please refer to KTFL deletion proposal for standards on notability of broadcast facilities. The inclusion of the TV station in Radio Station World and Univision establishes multiple non-trivial published works independent of the company/corporation, meeting even your standards, which are far more stringent. (Univision does not own the station.) In addition, the station is listed by the FCC as having been licensed since 2001. Apart from a personal testimony that the station is actually broadcasting Telefutura programming on UHF channel 24 in Pocatello, Idaho, I'm not sure how much more proof you can get that this station is operating and as such, merits inclusion into WikiPedia. There are many other stations included in Wikipedia with less documentation than KUNP-LP has. What I think we'll both agree on is that the KUNP-LP article as it stands is of poor quality and is based on long-outdated information - once this proceeding is complete, I plan to update and expand the article. dhett 09:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- (I've slightly reformatted your comment to make it more legible.) OK, but I don't quite see how this translates into notability per WP:CORP. Your links merely indicate that this radio station a) has been registered as such and b) has some physical antennas on a hill somewhere. The Fisher Broadcasting report just certifies that it meets certain radiation standards; it doesn't say anything about notability. WP:CORP requires that "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company or corporation itself", excluding trivial coverage such as in the first links. How does KUNP-LP meet this standard? Sandstein 05:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
SpeedyStrong Keep [Whatever] per dhett / Can be cleaned up. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 11:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is no grounds here for a speedy keep per Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Sandstein 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, all free or semi-free stations are notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTFL). TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 00:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Now that I've cleaned up the article and provided current information, there is no excuse to delete it. DHowell 03:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, after the improvements made to the article, there doesn't seem to be justification for a delete. Also, I'll note a Spanish-language television station operating in Idaho is in and of itself rather notable. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
