Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WEEP (defunct)

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. - Philippe 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WEEP (defunct)

WEEP (defunct) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Unlicensed station which has been off the air for 6 years, lacks sufficient notability and history to warrant an article. Rtphokie (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep There is a little notability, but the station no longer exists. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question - can you expand on that? How is it a little notable?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question Why was this article moved just before being nominated for deletion? Very strange. JPG-GR (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a defunct radio station, it was moved to correct the name for consistency with WP:WPRS#Article_naming_conventions--Rtphokie (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Must've missed when you made that change to the naming conventions. You're misinterpreting the naming conventions because that change goes against the general naming conventions of Wikipedia - it's unnecessary disambiguation. JPG-GR (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep; That this station no longer exists, and how long this station has been off the air is irrelevant, as per WP:RECENTISM. It has as much notability as any other real radio station, which is enough to generally squeak in.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment looking closer at the article, the station doesn't seem very long lived. I find this a sufficient article, but if there's a good page to merge to, I wouldn't really object to merging it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The station is notable, FCC action has been ongoing even into 2008, and there is neither a useful article in which to merge this information nor any compelling reason to delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Question Can you be more specific in how the station is notable? This station has been off the air for years for unremarkable reasons (failed to file paperwork properly). I fail to see how this is notable. Radio stations generally get a wide berth when it comes to notability but this is pushing that a bit far.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Being off the air is not a valid reason to delete something. Recentism is bad; just because the station is currently off the air, doesn't in anyway change its notability.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question That answers why it shouldn't be deleted but I've still not seen any references that indicate it was notable just that it existed. --Rtphokie (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • A FCC-authorized radio station is notable by default.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply The station is notable in part because it was the subject of coverage in reliable secondary sources, including the 2008 news story referenced in the article. - Dravecky (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm confused - if an editor creates hundreds of radio station articles providing links to the FCC database as proof of notability, a station is notable. But, if an article already exists and has just as much proof of notability, it's not notable? JPG-GR (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • 'Comment' Let's focus on this article not the editors, shall we? Consensus currently says that articles based on radio stations are inherently notable based the local programming provided to the communities they serve and the availability verifiable proof that the stations exist like government databases. Should that extend to radio stations that no longer are on the air? That's what this AFD is answering. I personally don't care either way, delete it, keep it, whatever, let's be consistent in our treatment of these articles. I'm looking to see what the consensus is and for a precedent. Should we read this AFD as the new precedent being any radio station is notable if verifiable 3rd party references can be found that the station once existed?--Rtphokie (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • There's no need for precedent; it's clearly stated in the guidelines, notability is not temporary. Whether or not they're still on the air doesn't matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Question Did you just admit to violating WP:POINT? You don't care what the result is, you're just trying to set a precedent? JPG-GR (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment' I have no point to make, I just want to know what the consensus is on articles like this.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Update I have significantly expanded the article, added more references, and now feel confident that the article could be expanded even further. (There's far more history to mine from this article, for example.) This station had a 66-year history, was one of the oldest stations in Minnesota, and continues to receive coverage in reliable secondary sources as recently as a few weeks ago. - Dravecky (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Thank you Dravecky. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notability has been proven. This whole "excercise" is rather WP:POINTy. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn' per notability is not temporary thanks Prosfilaes for pointing that out, it answers the question here I think.--Rtphokie (talk) 17:18, 13 May 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.