Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WKEL-FM

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 No consensus. I would have gone for keep if the dates predicted for it opening were not in the past. This needs to be watched and brought back if it does not open. Bduke (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WKEL-FM

WKEL-FM (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is about a radio station which has yet to sign on the air. While the "rule" that any fully licensed radio station deserves an article may or may not be valid, a radio station that has yet to broadcast at all is surely non-notable. JPG-GR (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, crystalballery. May be notable once it actually broadcasts. Lankiveil (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC).
• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. STORMTRACKER 94 12:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or Redirect - While it is a "future" station, 99% of that information came from Fybush.com. Scott Fybush (who operates 100000watts.com) checks and double checks his information. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 13:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect, it's owned by EMF (a.k.a the K-LOVE people), if the station makes it to the air (and after looking at the FCC info, I can't tell how along the application/construction permit is) it may just be a rebroadcast of one of the Educational Media Foundation services, which is why it should redirect to either Air 1 or K-LOVE, although a discussion over at WP:WPRS should happen about how notable stations not yet on the air should be (At what point are they notable?). Mr mark taylor (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Originially it was supposed to be an Oldies station, but you are probably right. It will probably either by Air 1 or K-LOVE. I would also support a redirect as well. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Clarification - As the articles about this station point out, as a licensed commercial station it will be required to keep local studios and follow other federal regulations regarding these facilities. Yes, the EMF will probably apply for a non-commercial status at some point and up will spring another chain of non-commercial translators but now we're getting into double-future speculation and it's wrong to make this sort of decision on this sort of speculation. - Dravecky (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep License is issued, as are permits, so as long as it has a future tag on it, it is reasonable to keep. This wouldn't be the first example of a future 'thing' on Wikipedia, and it is well documented. I didn't see anything in policy that directly says it should be deleted, seems that we are reading the policy backwards. Pharmboy (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although it's unusual to have an article before the station goes on the air, it's not "crystalballing" when the FCC license has been issued. Those licenses are so hard to obtain, it's unlikely that this will not come to be. I suppose that, yes, we could delete now and have the article come back up when WKEL 98.5 is on the air, but is that really necessary? Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Borderline WP:CRYSTAL. However, the _license_ already exists. So if we interpret this as an article about the license, then CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Add the "future" tag and keep. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment as a reminder from previous debates, it is not an official policy that a broadcast license makes a station notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I don't mention this to start up that whole debate again (though fear it will), but since this station has yet to broadcast at all, if the only claim for it's inclusion is based on a non-existent policy, there's little reason for keep. (If the station does begin broadcasting, I'm all for the re-creation of the article at that time.) JPG-GR (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to labor the point, but the policy doesn't exactly say that the station is only notable *if* they are broadcasting. Just as now defunct stations may be notable, this is one that has citations to demonstrate it will. It isn't that big of a deal, but it seems pointless to create/uncreate the article when there isn't a solid point for delete. Pharmboy (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta go with Pharmboy on this one. It is silly to delete something that we may recreate in a day or week from now. I say leave the "future" tage as Squidfryerchef suggested and Keep. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not notable because it's not broadcasting. I'm saying that it appears the only claim to notability it has is the existence of a license, and that's not enough. JPG-GR (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

...the "only claim to notability is it's license" arguement has been drove into the ground and we all know it got shot down. The station could launch tomorrow for all we know. Deleting the article and then bringing it back as it is, is just silly. The "future" tag will work just fine until the station launches...which, again, could be any day or next month. Ya don't know and neither do I, for that matter. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: The WKEL-FM article could certainly stand a bit of expansion to explain this better but the construction permit itself has already garnered some coverage. I've added a few references to this article that discuss WKEL-FM, the Educational Media Foundation's plans for the station, and the controversy this has sparked. - Dravecky (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Macy's123 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment To everyone quoting WP:CRYSTAL, you might try actually READING the policy. The first line says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation meaning that if the article has citations that are verifiable, then that policy doesn't apply, as it isn't speculation. Pharmboy (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think most people read the headline then skip the text. The next lines are All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. which means that WP:CRYSTAL actually supports keeping this article, not deleting it. - Dravecky (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - FCC licensed station which now has verified references added to the article to meet WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. I have advised the WP:WPRS to add references to future created articles to avoid other articles being nominated for deletion. --tgheretford (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, announced in media, FCC-license issued. 23skidoo (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Licensed full-power radio-stations are inherently notable. ViperSnake151 01:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree but before this "inherently" dance starts again, let me direct people's attention to Wikipedia:Notability (media) which is still up for discussion. More comments on this proposed guideline are welcomed and encouraged. - Dravecky (talk) 01:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete It would be an easy "keep" if it had multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, or if it were actually a licensed broadcasting station in operation, with some locally produced programming. Neither of these criteria are presently satisfied. No prejudice against creating an article if they ever get on ther air. Neglecting for a moment WP:BEANS: Should I create articles for all the broadcasting stations which obtained licenses, but never actually broadcast? The only difference between a station licensed in 1929 which never went on the air and this one is crystal-ballery.A "future" tag is not an excuse for firing up the crystal ball. Edison (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Another key difference between this station and that hypothetical 1929 failure is that WKEL-FM is licensed under an existing FCC-issued construction permit that will expire if they're not on the air after a set amount of time. Oh, and this article does now have multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of this CP and the surrounding issues. - Dravecky (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as FCC-licensed stations are indeed notable. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• "Licensed by the FCC" =/= "notable, and "Not existing yet" = "crystal ball". So, delete. --Calton | Talk 17:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment - Allow me to quote Dravecky directly from above: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. which means that WP:CRYSTAL actually supports keeping this article, not deleting it".

• Also, allow me to quote Pharmboy from above as well: "To everyone quoting WP:CRYSTAL, you might try actually READING the policy. The first line says Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation meaning that if the article has citations that are verifiable, then that policy doesn't apply, as it isn't speculation." So, please check out the policy before citing WP:CRYSTAL, Calton. It doesn't mean what everything thinks it does. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep since it is in the FCC database. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2007 (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.