Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WFAL

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 delete --slakr\ talk / 10:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WFAL

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

Non-notable collage micropower radio station. The station most likely can be heard for a mile or so. Only real claim to notability is it can heard on the local cable system. There is also a COI as one of it's DJ's has been making a number of edits to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep I actually noticed it wasn't updated in a year so I added new info about college sports, and also a link for references. Also there is a world wide broadcast available online and Time Warner Cable is a regional cable system. The article it's a part of the category: College radio stations in the United States. I've been talking to User:Corvus cornix about fixing the citation errors and such. This article also meets the standards for Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations)--Sbkbg (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (TV and radio stations) is a failed attempt at a guideline that basically never made it past a rough draft. Since this a student run commercial radio station it would fall underWikipedia:CORP#Primary_criterion which it very clearly fails. I don't see much difference between this and a student newspaper which in most cases is considered non-notable. Ridernyc (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Except there are specific categories for college radio stations. radio stations reach many more listeners then college newspapers. I feel I have provided the article with references and additional content and improved the article from what it was before.--Sbkbg (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. note: see Reference section of the article for independent secondary sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
First if we are going to quote guidelines let quote the entire paragraph and not pick the parts that suit us "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.". The newspaper article used as a reference is from the campus news site [1] far from independent, also one article is far from satisfying "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Ridernyc (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you going to flag every college radio station, I'm done with this argument. obviously no one else agrees with you or there'd be other delete comments... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:NOTE and WP:RS per Ridernyc. The references are dubious and not substantial enough to establish notability. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out that I have tried to find sources for this article and so far have come up with 0. Just directory type listings, blogs, and campus related events. Ridernyc (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment/Keep I have contributed a few things 1) link, 2) souces, 3)The station has numerous shows during the day and also carries BGSU and local high school sporting events. and; The station is primarily used for students wishing to persue jobs in the radio and communications industry to gain first hand knowlege and experience on operations of a radio station and shows. Def not COI!--Sbkbg (talk) 04:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment before User:Ridernyc got involved the main issues were no sources I solved that issue. strait from COI page-Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. if you read the sentences in the above comment i posted see for yourself if there's bias or info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
You have an amazing ability at picking apart pages and pages of information an choosing the one line that taken totally out of context will support you. To establish notability you need independent sources. I have explained this to you over and over and over again. Ridernyc (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I've given independent souces. What you're saying is basically if this was a radio station in Detroit, a Detroit newspaper couldn't be a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow you really want to twist things. That's it I'm moving on I'll let others deal with you from now on. Ridernyc (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thank you, you're basically the only one that has a problem with the article, move on, go bother someone else, better yet just get off wikipedia to be that critical of outside sources. and ruin an article with tons cleanup tags... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sorry, but your sources are primary and affiliated directly with the radio show itself. So far I see myspace, the official site of the radiostation/show, one dead link and a campus news article. These hardly meet the criteria for reliable second and third party sources. If this is all you can find, then I'll point you in the direction of WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to satisfy the sourcing requirements of WP:N. Jfire (talk) 05:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Commentfrom WP:N smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. --Sbkbg (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    That quote is absolutely true, but what you're still failing to ascertain is that you must prove the organization is notable. This isn't a question of whether or not the company or organization is small or large, it's whether the small has been covered in reliable sources. It fails WP:CORP. Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Student-run media are encyclopedic topics, especially ones which distribute content not only on-campus, but off as well. Broadcasting via radio and Internet fulfills those criteria. If there's a COI issue, address the problem, but a DJ making edits doesn't mean those edits are automatically unhelpful. Users with potential conflicts of interest can contribute, being mindful of our policies and editing with discretion. Furthermore, campus newspapers are reliable sources for the vast majority of purposes - they are edited, fact-checked and have a publishing history. FCYTravis (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes a campus newspaper can be a RS source. no one questions that, the problem here is establishing notability which requires independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: A non-notable campus radio station. As for broadcasting over the internet as a shoe-in for notability, well that's just plain daft. Anyone with SAM Broadcaster, a subscription to a Shoutcast server and an MP3 collection can run an Internet radio station. A lot do, 99% of which shouldn't come anywhere near having a WP article (my own included). --WebHamster 13:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. AndyJones (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this is not an issue that needs to be up for deletions. Campus media is just as worthy as other media. The newspaper i used as a resource is independent of the radio station and reliable. Ridernyc has some problem with me and put this article up for deletion b/c of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Wah-wah-wah! This isn't about bad faith, axes to grind or points to be made. Let the afd progress and the consensus will decide. It's now out of your hands and out of Ridernyc's. So far you're the only one with a proven POV and CoI so I suggest you don't damage your case any further with accusations like this. --WebHamster 14:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • commment I just don't won't the article destroyed, I've only done a little bit of work to an article that's been around for like 3 years. I contimue to find new references, I've posted more outside sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC) and I think COI and POV only refers to the article not a deletion debate.
Except none of them are reliable, bar maybe the school newspaper, but even that's a stretch. Regardless, it's still a primary source. For notability, wikipedia needs widespread coverage from secondary and third party sources. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sources do not adequately establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep College media sources can be considered independent and reiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.72.40 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
NOTE the anon's only contribution is this article for deletion and is most likely a sockpuppet. Wisdom89 (T / C) 16:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment I found this in the Wikipedia:Verifiability published in university presses- a college newspaper article would fall under that category.--Sbkbg (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It would fall under verifiable, but not significantly notable. The quote mine you took is referring to peer reviewed journals and books. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a non notable college radio station. It is clear attempts have been made to properly source the article, yet they yielded no reliable secondary sources. Very likely because there simple are none. Also, I find Sbkbg's arguments for keeping the article entirely unconvincing. I suggest he stops cherry picking sentences from policy as they are meaningless out of context.--Atlan (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Despite desparate attempts to stretch the concept of notability, non-trivial mention and reliable sources, this just doesn't make the grade Mayalld (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. The campus newspaper doesnt' establish notability for the campus radio station. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Generally, the bare minimum inclusion criterion for a radio station in the United States is whether it's been licensed by the FCC or not — Part 15/micropower stations don't generally qualify. However, it would be perfectly acceptable and quite reasonable to note the station's existence in our article on Bowling Green State University. Merge. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
merge sounds better than deletion, the radio station does follow FCC guidelines because of the boardcast on the Time Warner Cable channel.--Sbkbg (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge is a good idea actually - I think most of us here were caught up in the notability issue that we ended up missing the proverbial forest for the trees. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the sation is not licenced by the FCC it is affiliated with the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System here's a link[2] Also I think there was a bad piece of info on the page WFAL I don't believe the radio station is micro power, that would make it pirate and commercial radio stations aren't pirate. it could have been considered micrpower when it first started in a dorm before the university made it a real station, but that term wasn't formed until the 1990s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbkbg (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge Nothing demonstrating notability here. Heck, outside of primary sources it's just barely verifiable as existing. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. A newspaper is normally a reliable source (and this article cites two newspaper articles). The fact that the newspaper in question serves the same university does not detract from its status as an independent source of information. A student newspaper is generally a separate corporation from the university itself and regards its editorial independence as a fundamental aspect of its operations. All this may seem peripheral to the status of the radio station, but the fundamental criterion for notability ("A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.") seems to be met in this case, despite its status as a micropower station. --Eastmain (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not just a matter of whether or not there's one or two articles written in a campus newspaper. For the sake of argument, let's just assume it's independent and notable. 1.) It's primary 2.)It still fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTE as it's only marginal coverage. An editor needs to demonstrate quantity, quality, and prominence in secondary sources. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case by any stretch of the imagination. Wisdom89 (T / C) 06:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
A student newspaper does not inherently fail WP:CORP or WP:NOTE, nor is it a primary source if the article isn't about the newspaper itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment no need to merge as the topic is already covered in Bowling_Green_State_University#Student_life. Ridernyc (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

it's also covered in WBGU-FM. Also of note is that the information there contradicts information in The WFAL article. "it was started as a pirate radio station in a BGSU dorm in the 1970s" versus "According to legend, WFAL actually began as a pirate radio signal run by a student from his dorm room.". Which shows why reliable sourcing is needed for both articles and why the original research tag should not have been removed. As far as I can see none of the sources in the WFAL article cover it's origins as a pirate radio station. Ridernyc (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, new info I have found an outside source, although the sation is not licenced by the FCC it is affiliated with the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System here's a link[3]--Sbkbg (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not licensed by FAA, many other issues note above. Troll factory; see WP:ANI. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Keep News Corporation owns a variety of newspapers and magazines and also owns many radio and TV stations. if a newspaper did an article on the station it would be considered independent. I guess if you delete this article we'll have to delete half of wikipedia. just because to separate and independent media outlets are owned by the same company doesn't make them primary sources.--Sbkbg (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete and Merge College stations are notable, the licensed ones by the FCC, this one isn't. Any kid in his/her dorm room could come up with something like this and call it "The Voice of John Doe College". Merge it into the parent college article and elaborate there, but until they have a real licensed station it's not notable enough. Mr mark taylor (talk) 22:07, 22 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.