Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBLQ-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 (closed by Non-admin) RMHED (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WBLQ-LP
Article is about a low-power radio station which does not assert its notability. JPG-GR (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, as FCC-licensed radio stations have usually been judged to be notable in AfD discussions (see WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment). Deor (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- From the link you provided Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. JPG-GR (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a part 15! Plus the broadcast range is more than just a small neighborhood.Stereorock (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- From the link you provided Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated. JPG-GR (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Deor. This station serves more than just a small neighborhood, and their websit indicates the station originates its own content. --L. Pistachio (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete Low power stations such as this have not been as automatically kept as have normal broadcast stations. This one has an effective radiated power of only 100 watts. The "outcomes" says that such stations need something more than an FCC license. I would like to see substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to satisfy WP:N without the appeal to inherent notability due to the government licensing. Edison (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, as the creator of this article I have this morning expanded this article to assert notability, show that it serves a significant geographical area, and has received substantial coverage in local and industry media. I would ask that anybody who has read the article as originally nominated examine it again before proceeding. On another note, Rhode Island, the smallest state in the nation, has many so-called full-power FM stations with an erp of only a few hundred watts as it takes very little power to cover the landmass and serve the population. - Dravecky (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Providence Journal appears to be a reliable source, and has two articles, one behind a paywall and the other stating that the local Chamber of Commerce for some reason refused to let the station be a member. The other article are from what appears to be someone's radio blog and are not as convincing as evidence of notability. That leaves 2 articles, which is on the low side of "multiple." Edison (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: NorthEast Radio Watch is a reliable source and has been published weekly for roughly a decade, not merely a hobbyist blog. And the fact that a source is currently behind a "pay wall" is not relevant as the article also appeared in the print edition of that newspaper. There is no requirement that all reliable sources be accessible online. - Dravecky (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Providence Journal appears to be a reliable source, and has two articles, one behind a paywall and the other stating that the local Chamber of Commerce for some reason refused to let the station be a member. The other article are from what appears to be someone's radio blog and are not as convincing as evidence of notability. That leaves 2 articles, which is on the low side of "multiple." Edison (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as well. As I previously stated on the WXHQ-LP discussion page, User:JPG-GR seems to have a bias against L.P.F.M. stations for no apparent reason yet seems perfectly content with other "un-notable", but "full-power" stations having entries. L.P.F.M.s right now have a 100-watt maximum which is the same amount of power that is the minimum for a class A F.M.-many of which DO broadcast @ 100W! Additionally, Wikipedia lists L.P.T.V. stations, so why NOT L.P.F.M. stations?!Stereorock (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I thought the 3000 watt FM station I once broadcast on had a crappy weak signal. It is hard to envision a commercial station with 100 watts. Thaen there is the very weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Each article should satisfy notability requirements on its own without arguing that there are lots of other articles which are about things of dubious notability. They may get their own deletion nominations in due time. Edison (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The station is notable for serving their community and as an alternative to the big commercial FM operations out of Providence. It's licensed, it's not just a non-notable stick transmitting some network like K-LOVE or a Jones Radio Network, and it has local programming. That makes it plenty enough notable. Nate • (chatter) 01:53, 1 February 2008 (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.
