Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WDRQ

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WDRQ

A self described, within article, advert and fan cruft piece for, as it looks, "defunct" Detroit radio station, gives no history, no background, nothing pertaintant, other then the writers statement "this article is intended to solidify its place in Detroit's history.". --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup and keep - Article was created by a green newcomer, who isn't yet entirely familiar with our standards. The article has two articles that link to it already, and it can be salvaged. Let's try not to bite newcomers. – ClockworkSoul 04:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't say that's biting the newcomer - it's a neutral and accurate assessment of the article as written. No vote yet. -- 8^D ^gab 04:05, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
  • Oh, no - I didn't mean to say it was! (Sorry if it sounded that way). Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt though, and see what happens. – ClockworkSoul 04:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Most newly created, somewhat obscure articles that seem non-notable don't already have links to them, which, I think, means this one has potential. Is that logo fair use, what's the policy for logos? --Dmcdevit 04:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Logos are okay. I just went and threw a Template:logo tag on it ("It is believed that logos may be exhibited on Wikipedia under the fair use provision of United States copyright law."). – ClockworkSoul 04:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh... Thanks. I should really get to know these things... --Dmcdevit 05:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair use for our limited purpose of demonstrating what the logo of the station was. The law of fair use permits displays of copyrighted material so long as it for a primarily non-profit purpose (obviously this is), is primarily for an educational or research related purpose (both apply to us), has a minimal impact on the market for the copied material (what market?), and so long as no more of the copyrighted material is used than is necessary to fulfill the needs of the education or research at hand (for a logo, you really can't use less than the whole thing). My opinion is that we're safe. -- 8^D ^gab 05:02, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
• Keep All licensced radio stations are notable. Klonimus 07:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, promo, stationcruft. Megan1967 11:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to whatever the callsign is for the station that replaced it. I'm presuming they didn't tear down the building and put up a new station, this seems to be just a name change, just like it was called "The Light FM" before it was called WDRQ. --bainer 12:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. JuntungWu 14:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. So what do you guys think? I cleaned it up a bit, so is it ok now? Dirkbike 23:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually, in reference to bainer's comment, maybe Wikipedia needs a history of FCC licensed AM and FM frequencies. This would make it much easier for people to track who broadcasted over what channels. Dirkbike 23:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Format changes are common enough, but this one reads like the change at KMET. At a major market, yet. - Lucky 6.9 06:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Major market radio station seems notable enough, Dmcdevit makes a good point also. Rx StrangeLove 03:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Comment When do these things get resolved? - Dirkbike 03:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.