Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WXHQ-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) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WXHQ-LP
Article is about a low-power radio station which does not assert its notability. JPG-GR (talk) 01:34, 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)
-
-
- This is not a Part 15 operation, and the FCC's service-area map shows that its signal reaches basically all of Newport, Rhode Island, which is not exactly a "small neighborhood." Deor (talk) 01:57, 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 50 watts, less than the light bulb on my front porch. 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) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, as the creator of this article I have this evening expanded this article to assert notability, show that it serves a significant geographical area, and has received substantial coverage in local, state, and industry media. I would ask that anybody who has read the article as 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) 08:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The sourcing is still very weak in proof of notability, with most of the references being what looks like a radio hobbyist blog and directory type listings. Two of the refs, The Newport Mercury and The Newport Daily News, look like they count toward the "substantial coverage in multiple reliable and indepedndet sources" part of WP:N. Two is a low level of '"multiple." Edison (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The Providence Phoenix and the Radio Business Report are also reliable and independent sources with print editions. And the NorthEast Radio Watch is hardly a mere hobbyist blog. Yes, the RBR article is a list but it's used to source a key fact in the article. Sometimes useful data is best presented as a list. - Dravecky (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThe Providence Phoenix has only a trivial passing reference. "Radio Business Report" has only a line in a directory listing about this station. It is fine to include if it is a needed ref for a fact in the article, but does not show notability. I can' tell that "NorthEast Radio Watch" is more than a WP:SPS self-published source, but I am open to discussion on this. Directory listings, passing reference, and hobbyist websites do not make a strong case for notability. An FCC license is not a "certificate of notability" for low power or hobby broadcasting operations. Edison (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- CommentNorth East Radio Watch has been published online since circa 1996 & speaking personally, with a good track record of accuracy. Whilst Scott Fybush, the editor/website owner will publish rumor, he clearly identifies them as such. He will say something to the effect of "... and on the radio message boards, they're talking about a format flip for WYZ-AM-FM. So far the stations are still airing Christmas music but it looks like the AM will go country as "Hot Country 1605" early next month." He also retracts inaccuracies like a newspaper would. Additionally he (Fybush) does check the F.C.C. register. Just speaking from personal experience, N.E.R.W. has been a pretty accurate (99%+) website about radio information for well over a decade. Finally, sometimes the site has stuff before anyone else.Stereorock (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If NERW gets quoted by other sources considered reliable, like "Broadcasting" magazine and its peers, or newspapers of general circulation, that would count towards NERW being considered a reliable source. In any area and for any topic, there are hobbyist websites which cover every radio transmitter, every bus stop, every railroad locomotive engine, every garage band, every model of celphone, etc, and by virtue of their non-selectivity do not prove notability. Edison (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply A quick look at Google News will show you that NorthEast Radio Watch has been quoted and recognized as a reliable industry newsletter by the New York Times, Boston Globe, Buffalo News, Cape Cod Times, Berkshire Eagle, Times Argus, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, and National Public Radio. - Dravecky (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If NERW gets quoted by other sources considered reliable, like "Broadcasting" magazine and its peers, or newspapers of general circulation, that would count towards NERW being considered a reliable source. In any area and for any topic, there are hobbyist websites which cover every radio transmitter, every bus stop, every railroad locomotive engine, every garage band, every model of celphone, etc, and by virtue of their non-selectivity do not prove notability. Edison (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- CommentNorth East Radio Watch has been published online since circa 1996 & speaking personally, with a good track record of accuracy. Whilst Scott Fybush, the editor/website owner will publish rumor, he clearly identifies them as such. He will say something to the effect of "... and on the radio message boards, they're talking about a format flip for WYZ-AM-FM. So far the stations are still airing Christmas music but it looks like the AM will go country as "Hot Country 1605" early next month." He also retracts inaccuracies like a newspaper would. Additionally he (Fybush) does check the F.C.C. register. Just speaking from personal experience, N.E.R.W. has been a pretty accurate (99%+) website about radio information for well over a decade. Finally, sometimes the site has stuff before anyone else.Stereorock (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThe Providence Phoenix has only a trivial passing reference. "Radio Business Report" has only a line in a directory listing about this station. It is fine to include if it is a needed ref for a fact in the article, but does not show notability. I can' tell that "NorthEast Radio Watch" is more than a WP:SPS self-published source, but I am open to discussion on this. Directory listings, passing reference, and hobbyist websites do not make a strong case for notability. An FCC license is not a "certificate of notability" for low power or hobby broadcasting operations. Edison (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply The Providence Phoenix and the Radio Business Report are also reliable and independent sources with print editions. And the NorthEast Radio Watch is hardly a mere hobbyist blog. Yes, the RBR article is a list but it's used to source a key fact in the article. Sometimes useful data is best presented as a list. - Dravecky (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The sourcing is still very weak in proof of notability, with most of the references being what looks like a radio hobbyist blog and directory type listings. Two of the refs, The Newport Mercury and The Newport Daily News, look like they count toward the "substantial coverage in multiple reliable and indepedndet sources" part of WP:N. Two is a low level of '"multiple." Edison (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep as well. User:JPG-GR seems to have a bias against L.P.F.M. stations for no apparent reason. He is also trying to delete these stations from the List of radio stations in Rhode Island page. WXHQ-LP holds an F.C.C. license & from what it appears, seems to be more notable than, say, WDIS/1170-Norfolk, Ma.. Besides, I've been able to pick up the station in Barrington, R.I. on occasion. Also, User:Edison, R.F. watts are different from an incandescent light bulb as the wattage of a light bulb is total, including loss of heat (~96%!). To be equivalent, you'd have to accept the total amount of wattage from the receptacle to its transmitter, which is more than 50W. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stereorock (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Discussions of light bulb efficiency aside, it needs to be shown that the station has substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources. Having a signal which theoretically is receivable by people in some geographic area does not mean that they tune it in, any more than have a website or web radio station accessible by every internet-connected computer means the website is widely followed or notable. Edison (talk) 19:13, 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)
- Keep as per Stereorock Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. (talk) 23:46, 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.
