Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 18

WRNY (AM) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

WRRC (FM) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

All the reasons for keeping these were completely ridiculous, not based in any policy or guideline, and ignored the policies cited in the nomination reason. They were based on some unwritten rule that a FCC license makes a radio station notable. However, that is directly contrary to the notability guideline and most of the article content fails WP:V. Other reasons for keeping were in the range of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - comparing these minor stations to the BBC World Service. The AFD tag was removed from one article before it was closed with a very OWN-ish reason. I should also note a request for keep votes made at the radio station WikiProject. There is currently a discussion about whether or not a license makes a station notable at the village pump. Mr.Z-man 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• overturn - The very idea that a station is notable because it exists is debatable. The same criterion could be applied to companies. Incidentally, why aren't we using WP:CORP to decide notability? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the problem with using WP:CORP is that broadcast outlets are in direct competition with those sources that would otherwise report on them, establishing notability. If I'm the local newspaper, I'm certainly not going to cover what the local radio and television stations do, unless they screw up. There's a conflict of interest that does not exist with other businesses covered under WP:CORP. For example, I live in Phoenix. Last year, the NBC-affiliated television station became the first in the state to broadcast their local news in high-definition. I would consider that newsworthy. But who would cover it? The newspaper would, but they're owned by the same company as the television station, Gannett, so that disqualifies them as an independent source. Certainly no other television station would cover it; you don't build up your competition. Same with radio. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist. "Having a license" =/= "notable". Standard notability/referencing/sourcing guidelines and rules still apply. --Calton | Talk 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As Is - If you remove these two, you might as well remove each and every single radio and TV station, radio and TV program, radio and TV network. An FCC license makes the station notable. WRNY is no more and no less notable than WABC and KDKA and on the same token, WABC and KDKA are no less and no more notable than WRNY. Removing them opens up a can of worms that puts each and every single radio and TV station article at risk of being deleted and sets a precedent that if it is small and even remotely "non-notable" then it shouldn't be here, which would put the entire project, Wikipedia itself, in jeopardy. Think before acting. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 23:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • See WP:ALLORNOTHING - also, Wikipedia simply isn't precedent-based. -Halo (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As Is - FCC-licensed radio (and television) stations are inherently notable. It's true that some radio stations are more notable than others but the policy isn't "very notable" or "most notable" it's just about being notable. Down this road you could put 95% of the content of Wikipedia in jeopardy. (Do we really need articles for every US President? Or country? Or chemical element? Hint: We do.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. A well-meaning non-admin closed the discussions, but probably wasn't aware of the canvassing done here: [1] (note that there is a similar note for WP:WPRS members to come to this DRV). I see no reason why radio stations should be exempt from WP:V and WP:N, and I find the argument that they are inherently notable unconvincing. henrik•talk 00:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep. The arguments in these discussions aren't very good, but one of the articles nominated for deletion is WRRC (FM), founded 45 years ago. According to the article, this station went on the air in November 1962, and is old enough to have been a part of the the classic Mutual Broadcasting System-era Golden Age of Radio, when radio stations were still airing a large number of radio sitcoms and soap operas. Surely the original nomination was a mistake. I can't imagine deleting an article on a 45-year old "golden age" radio station. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Its a college radio station with a broadcast area of 10 sq mi, surely if it is so notable there are reliable sources. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The radius is 10 miles, not the coverage area. The coverage area is around 350 square miles... on the well-populated East Coast of the U.S. The potential audience is 313,000 persons,[2] as already linked in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist in light of canvassing. Being licensed does not automatically indicate notability, and there are no guidelines that say this. A non-admin probably should not have closed the discussions. --Coredesat 01:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• They should be at the very least relisted, because of this gross canvassing. Not to mention that they were closed very shortly, which gave very little time for people to refute the ridiculous "license=notable" keeps. And finally, it was a non-admin closing, and there isn't currently a decision on whether or not those are germane. I (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist without reliable, non-trivial indepentent sources, an article can't exist, also see WP:CCC, all the elementary and middle schools articles that are being deleted in droves are a perfect example. This is a Secret ^account 01:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist because of the incorrect close and canvassing. The well-meaning non-admin who closed as WP:SNOW somewhat understandably assumed from the weight of comments that "FCC licence = notable" was policy, when this is obviously not the case. My personal feeling is that one of these stations is probably just about notable and the other probably isn't, but another AfD is certainly required here. ELIMINATORJR 01:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse the fundamental issue is whether or not FCC-licensed stations are inherently notable, which was the primary "keep" contention. Currently, although probably not officially stated anywhere, we have a short list of inherently notable things: settlements regardless of how low the population is, legislators at the highest non-national level (US state assemblypeople, e.g.), chemical elements, high schools (still some controversy there, but I can only vaguely recall a high school being deleted on notability grounds and not recently. Adding FCC-licensed US-based radio stations to this rag-tag list of inherently notables is probably not too inconsistent with practice here. Cable & web & satelite radio stations get deleted with some regularity; but, I cannot recall a licensed terrestrial station being deleted. Rather than test each of them by some criteria, it's probably best to globally note their inherent notability and move on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Are you comparing small radio stations with chemical elements?! I'm sorry, but that just jumped out at me and I seriously needed some clarification on that one. JPG-GR (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a value judgment, it's what the WP community is considering inherently notable, which is not to say that some small town in Madagascar is more or less notable or worthy than the chemical elements - it's just that we as a community have decided that each is inherently notable. Adding licensed radio stations to that list is making no value judgment any more than saying anyone who meets WP:BIO gets a biography here - you don't need to be as famous as Julius Caesar - not a value judgment that the average joe who hits two or three newspaper articles about his deeds/misdeeds is as important or worthy as Caesar or Christ or Queen Elizabeth, it's jut rough consensus here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist as no valid arguments for the notability of these stations have been presented, this is the only option. JPG-GR (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreoever, due to the large scale canvassing, a relist is necessary to seek a greater consensus across the community. JPG-GR (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep: As mentioned above, all articles with an FCC or governmental license is notable, regardless of ratings, reach, or ownership. Delete these, then it will like be saying that only corporate-owned stations that are the top five in large markets are allowed to stay, while lower-rated, independently-owned stations, especially in unranked markets, are given the boot. And if these stations go, you might as well forbid all articles related to radio and television. delete all or delete none -- it's your choice. -- azumanga (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how we only have those 2 choices and why radio stations are so special to be excused from so many Wikipedia policies and guidelines based on one unwritten rule, which I have yet to see any evidence of being a community created consensus. Mr.Z-man 03:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Azumanga1, this isn't AFD. This is a discussion of whether process was properly followed in the AFD, which it wasn't. Besides, your arguments is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS anyway. --Coredesat 03:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, what if the Television and Cable Factbook and Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook, two important tomes in the broadcasting industry, is just as selective as you are? I know we can't compete against them, but still it is best to be just as complete. Wikipedia has one thing in common with those books, in which they are reference materials. To omit important information dismissed as "unimportant" would practically corrupt the integrity of Wikipedia. Think about it. -- azumanga (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a universal reference guide. Should we also be as complete as the Urban Dictionary and the Yellow Pages? Mr.Z-man 05:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy. Hey! So many familiar faces on IRC! Shameless canvassing goes both ways, it seems... Firsfron of Ronchester 06:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you're clearly referring to me by quoting me twice, I have not used IRC in at least 8 months, perhaps longer; I frequently comment at DRV, though, which, ironically, is how I came upon this discussion. Amazing how that worked! I would ask you to back up your baseless claims or retract them. My statements are far from baseless. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bbatsell, I am not referring to you in any way. I very much like you. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 00:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist due to short incubation time, shameless canvassing by Neutralhomer (talk · contribs). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn; the slippery slope argument is completely fallacious. — Coren ^(talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - To whoever put the "This is not a majority vote..." thing at the top. I didn't and won't tell people how to vote. I said it needed to be stopped, but if those people wanted to side with Mr.Z-man, then there isn't anything I can do about that. Me telling others about something doesn't affect a vote. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 06:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment That was me, regarding "We need to let Mr.Z-man know that changing the notability standard for Radio and TV stations is a bad idea...REALLY bad idea." being added to WT:WPRS as well as the talk pages of all "super-active" members of WP:WPRS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse keep - I was informed of this discussion by Neutralhomer, but was not informed of and did not participate in the AfDs for each article. I do not cite inherent notability provided by a license alone, but I believe that the results of each AfD should be upheld, as both stations should be considered notable. In the case of WRNY (AM), the station originates programming and can be cited to help establish notability in other articles. Can a station provide notability to others and not be notable itself? In the case of WRRC (FM), the article needs serious work to bring it to Wikipedia standards, but given the citation by Firsfron of Ronchester that the station's broadcast range gives it a potential audience of 313,000 people, hardly trivial, I would deem it notable if it also originates programming and is not a mere translator. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV is not a rehash of AFD. DRV is strictly to review the closure of the discussion. Since the closure occurred after a number of hours, rather than 5 days, and since the majority of the contributors had come from either a Wikiproject or their talk pages, where they were specifically instructed to keep the article, and since the only keep rationale was per a non-existent policy (the only notability criteria we have on Wikipedia is whether there is significant third-party coverage in reliable sources), it was clearly an incorrect closure. If you feel that after a full discussion, the article will be kept, then you should have no qualms about a relist. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, I read the previous posts, trying to figure out how to respond appropriately. I had no intention of rehashing the AfDs, but I guess my assertion that the results of the AfDs should be upheld wasn't sufficient, so let me try again. The closures, although hasty, were appropriate, per WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment. There are thousands of media articles, and time after time they are inappropriately nominated for deletion, citing WP:CORP, which is an inappropriate standard for media. These don't need to have a full five days' discussion; they shouldn't exist in the first place. Rudget's actions were correct, even if he isn't so sure of it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So media is compltely immune to deletion? That doesn't sound right. Also, it would have been nice if these articles said all these things that have come out in the deletion review that might show notability. Rather, WRNY (AM) only discusses the station's format, it gives almost no historical background, not even when it started broadcasting. WRRC (FM) gives some historical info, but mostly trivial details ("There was a main studio, an auxiliary production studio and record library..."), and nothing about why it is important. Mr.Z-man 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't sound right, because I never said that media is completely immune to deletion. I'm puzzled how you came up with that. What I did say is that the closure of the AfDs was appropriate, due to WP:OUTCOMES. What I did say is that WP:CORP is inappropriate to apply to media. What I did say is that your noms were inappropriate. We need a sensible standard for media article notability, and WP:CORP is not it. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep - per Dhett. If it hadn't of been me, it would have been someone else. Rudget.talk 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • or Relist - as per concerns that Hiding brought up. If there was a consensus, then if it is relisted, it will demonstrate a further support for keeping the article. However, I am concerned that as this is deletion review, the AFD will suffer because of this. The whole mention of whether a radio station has a license or not should have been first discussed by the nominator at the appropriate umbrella project. But, this did not occur. Rudget.talk 13:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Since when does one have to ask permission from projects before nominating articles for deletion? Mr.Z-man 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Never. It's just a suggestion, so a nominator can get a better picture of what they are nominating. Rudget.talk 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep.Relist - possible canvassing and hastily closed, although these do look like obvious keeps and the AFD discussions so far were overwhelmingly for keeping these two articles. The rationales were solid. There is a consensus at the radio station wikiproject, and among the participants in the AFD discussion, that radio stations are inherently notable. I tend to agree. Standard notability guidelines clearly do not apply well to media outlets, but that's an argument to be made elsewhere. Anyone who does not like this should make the argument at the policy/guideline level, not by taking potshots at individual articles for deletion. Wikidemo (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist. Less than one day is not long enough to discuss the issues raised in the debate or challenge the opinion by some Wikipedians that their view is consensus. This smacks just a little of weighting the debate, in that the debate was closed before we had a chance to see if a differing consensus would emerge. I would also point out this was a close performed by a non-admin, something guidance tells us should typically be performed during periodfs of backlog. I can't at any point see how closing a debate the day it opens is aiding in any backlog, and I can't see any evidence of a backlog at afd. There are legitimate concerns of vote stacking here, and it is in the interests of all parties that the consensus the people here declare exists is tested with a five day debate. If the current consensus is that this article should be kept, the relisting will do no harm, in fact it will be strengthened. If there is no such consensus, then it should be relisted even more so. Those that believe the consensus to keep this article exists should have nothing to lose in re-opening debate. Hiding Talk 10:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Due to possible canvassing and the fact that the AfD's were closed after only one day. Whispering 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep - The closing admin made the determination that being a licensed station is enough for notability. Unless that specifically violates a policy here, then the decision to keep is not out of order. Stop making this into AfD Part II, please. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which closing admin would that be? You have read this discussion and seen the debate was closed by a non-admin, yes? Hiding Talk 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• And by the by, yes, a closing admin is certainly out of bounds in deciding "that being a licensed station is enough for notability", that is a decision for a consensus of wikipedians. It's an even greater bound for a non-admin. Is there canvassing in operation here too? Hiding Talk 14:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The closing admin made the determination... That's not a determination, that's a claim -- one VERY much in doubt. --Calton | Talk 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please note I am not an admin. And it was a determination, not a claim. Rudget.talk 15:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Since it was inherently contrary to policy, I would term it a claim. Sorry. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I misspoke when I said "admin", but it doesn't really affect anything here. It is not contrary to policy though, that is the whole point here. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy? If you want to argue for a relist or overturn on procedural issues, how about this one? Were these steps followed? If not, then these AfDs should not have occurred in the first place. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Notability is actually not "policy", but a guideline, and is "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." DHowell (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant procedural issue is Wikipedia:Deletion process, specifically the section on non-admin closure. Two parts are partciularly relevant However, at times the various deletion discussions become backlogged. Editors in good standing who have not been made administrators may close deletion discussions and Close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator. A WP:SNOW close is typically controversial, and indeed even states An uphill battle is extremely difficult but potentially winnable. In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome that requires the full process. Hiding Talk 09:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the nominator did not follow WP:N guidelines for non-compliant articles, and that media deletions were already treated in WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, due to the results of about 30 previous AfDs where the broadcast station article had been preserved, the nominations never should have occurred in the first place. So you can bang on the non-admin who closed the AfDs for WP:SNOW, but it doesn't change the fact that he did the right thing, if perhaps for the wrong reason. Process has not been offended here; there is no need to rehash this debate. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The nominator did follow WP:N, which guides about half a dozen different possibilities, deletion included. We also have the ideal that consensus can change. If we are prepared to do more than simply pay lip service to that ideal, then we have to let the five days ride. Since you believe the articles will not be deleted, you have nothing to lose. The only reason I can see for not having a full five days is that there's the doubt the consensus may change, which is precisely why we should have it relisted. That's why a WP:SNOW close is so contentious. Let's not forget that per deletion process, as an admin I can simply reopen the debate. I think we'd all agree that way disaster lies. Hiding Talk 19:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Relist. I am not persuaded that any of the endorse/keep votes have given a valid reason for not reconsidering this, bearing in mind the clear violation of process. --Smalljim (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist on procedural grounds. The canvassing was bad. The non-admin close may be understandable given what appeared to be a genuine WP:SNOW case but from what has now been uncovered, this closure is contaminated. A full deletion debate needs to be run. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse or relist. Canvassing = bad, so a relisting would be required to determine the consensus. But there is not going to be a consensus to delete these articles, so I don't think we should bother. Mr Z-man's deletion rationale was weak; the articles are stubs and will improve with time. Mangojuice^talk 16:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No sources for the article's content is a weak reason? Mr.Z-man 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. The "unwritten rule" is WP:OUTCOMES - "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." --Smashville^BONK! 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's also important to note that no one ever asked in either AfD where that argument came from or it could have been presented. --Smashville^BONK! 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OUTCOMES isn't official policy, thats the same page that said all schools, even elementary schools are notable a few months ago (that was later reworded to high schools only), also the issue here is with sources for me, having a mention in the FCC isn't enough anymore, more sources need to exist. This is a Secret ^account 18:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • And consensus can change. Mr.Z-man 19:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment seals the deal as far as I am concerned, and it isn't supposed to be or designed to be "official policy"; what it is is a summation of arguments that have been made in the past, to serve as a guideline for future, similar arguments. Kinda like a court ruling that sets a precedent for later courts to follow. The issue of canvassing is rendered moot, as whether it is one vote or a hundred, the argument of notability is settled. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • So not only is it not policy, but it can't be changed by consensus and it overrides actual policies/guidelines? Mr.Z-man 00:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist reluctantly due to the canvassing noted above which combined with the early closure makes a procedural relisting on AFD probably necessary. However agree with some of the arguments of those arguing for the article to be kept and cannot see a consensus emerging for them to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Relist - I'm only going to review one request, WRNY (AM). First, does an FCC licence provide enough reliable source material to write a Wikipedia article? I see the links in the article, but they lead to trivia information. I would appreciate it if someone can provide me a link to such a contractual license so that I can look at the text. The AfD discussion seems to imply that if something is important, there should be a Wikipedia article on it even if there is not enough reliable source material to support such an article. That's just nonsense since it is inconsistent with Wikipedia's article standards policies, such as WP:V. Comment Here is some info on WRNY: "Hugo Gernsback had founded radio station WRNY, located in New York's Roosevelt Hotel, in 1925. Three years later, the station began one of the world's first regular television broadcasts."Smithsonian August 1990. Here is a blurb:New York Times August 11, 1991. "New Jersey claims many other TV firsts: standard broadcast station to transmit an image, from WRNY in Fort Lee across the Hudson River to a New York University lecture hall in 1928." The Morning Call (July 25, 1993) (search). George Mortimer Chadwick provided program notes for radio broadcasts sponsored by the New York Edison Company over Station WRNY[3]. "The first scheduled television programmes were broadcast by WRNY in New York."[4]. -- Jreferee t/c 19:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• comment Possibly relist for a better discussion, that will conform to WP policy, but with respect to WRNY I think Jreferee has shown pretty conclusively why it would be notable. An inadequate article is not proof of un-notability. There is not and should not be a policy that mere government licensing --of anything --is alone enough of a source for notability. I can;t see how that is any sort of rational inclusionism. The FCC does an adequate directory--they are however not an encyclopedia. And vice versa. . DGG (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment.The reference[5] cited in the WRNY (AM) article mentions the facts that Jreferee traced too, but it also says that it was bought out by WHN and closed down in 1934. So is it the same station? If it is, I'm mystified by the 60-odd year gap and why these facts are in a reference quoted in the article, but not in the article itself. I'd suggest that the guys at WP:WPRS have a good tidy-up of these articles...(later)... Oh I see they are doing so, and Azumanga1 has deleted[6] that reference as "unrelated defunct station". Sorry, we've just wasted our time. --Smalljim (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Believe me, the members of WP:WPRS and WP:TVS are constantly improving articles. When we're not battling persistent and prolific vandals, that is. As for wasting time, the two AfDs that brought us here and these following discussions could be viewed as a waste of time, since below, DHowell has pointed out 30 previous AfDs where the station's existence was upheld. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. Was the non-admin closure inappropriate or too early? Perhaps. Was there canvassing? Probably. However, there is indeed overwhelming precedent and consensus for articles on licensed full-service broadcast stations, which are not merely translators, to be retained. Policy and guidelines follow from consensus, not the other way around. If there is strong consensus to ignore a guideline in some specific case, then that is an example of ignore all rules being correctly applied. Evidence for the strong consensus, documented in WP:OUTCOMES#Entertainment, is established by, in addition to discussion at WikiProject Radio Stations and WikiProject Television Stations, many prior AfD discussions, including those for the following radio and TV stations: KGRG-FM, KKWK, KPLI-FM, KMXV, KPDF-CA, KPTY-FM, KPXC-TV, KSIV, KTAR, KFTL, KUPN-LP, KXRZ-FM, WDRQ, WEZG, WFNO, WHHS, WKIT, WKTG, WLCM (Lancaster), WMLN, WMME-FM, WOJO, WPKN, WPPJ, WPSR-FM, WRCG, WRDZ, WRFD, WTVT, WXYK. However, to address the points about notability not being established by reliable sources, there are many: besides the FCC database, there is FQMB, 100000watts.com (fee required for full access), RadioStationWorld, and Radio-locator, and there are many printed reliable sources about broadcast stations which are not available for free online, such as industry publications like Broadcasting & Cable, Inside Radio, Adweek, as well as local newspapers within each radio market which usually cover the local radio scene. A thorough search of all these publications would very likely turn up a significant amount of information about every FCC-licensed broadcast station which does not simply translate the programming of another station. However, not all of these sources are easily found and immediately available: that is why the principle that "FCC-licensed" equals "notable" make sense. DHowell (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you add some recent examples of AFDs, not ones that was closed years ago back when AFD was a vote count This is a Secret ^account 04:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Six of those AFDs are from 2007, not "years ago". Firsfron of Ronchester 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Wait until the Wikipedia:Notability (media) proposed guidelines are either accepted or rejected, and then (if they are rejected) relist. Under the current proposal, both of these stations qualify. There is no urgent need to delete these articles; we can wait until the consensus determines the fate of the notability guidelines. Horologium t-c 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure: arguments for keeping the article were coherent (licensed radio stations are a class of topics that generally meet notability standards) and the "canvassing" was not meaningful. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist - Simply closed too early with canvassing and poor keep arguments. Running this through AFD again won't do any harm and should bring a clearer consensus. -Halo (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • DHowell has already provided links above to 30 radio/TV station AFDs from 2005 to 2007, which all resulted in keeping the nominated article. I can't imagine how much more clear the consensus needs to be. Although consensus can change, does there really need to be a 32nd nomination before editors realize a good portion of the community feels these articles are both worthwhile and within WP's notability guidelines? Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Sadly, yes. All the points made are good, but they should be made in an afd, not a deletion review, to strengthen the consensus even more. I'm certainly interested in revisiting the debate if only to add a keep comment. I think it is important to Wikipedia and in our best interests that we have the five day debate, attract a wide number of editors and get a resounding keep, and make that the flag for a guideline. Hiding Talk 09:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, relist I can't agree that the arguments at the AfDs were compelling. I don't see an FCC license as conferring notability. What next a plumber's license. I'm for inclusion, but not setting a poor precedent for why. --Kevin Murray (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist The AfD discussion completely ignored the relevant standards for keeping an article (such as WP:N and, as mention by the sole deletion vote, even WP:V). It should not have been closed before addressing those. --Minimaki (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse keep result. Closure was not proper, given that a non-admin evaluated a case with some complexity; however, it is a fairly decided outcome that existing radio-stations are kept, so I don't think a relisting will achieve anything meaningful. Xoloz (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Spikes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deleted out of process. This page was about to get speedily deleted shortly after its creation, and I added a source for the band's having charted in Ireland. Looks like it got machine-gunned again anyway a few days ago. Charting a hit qualifies under WP:MUSIC and thus would make the group ineligible for speedy. Haven't heard back from the deleting admin. Chubbles (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The link you provided which supposedly proved the contention doesn't go to any page which actually proves that. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment It's difficult for me to see what you mean, since the article doesn't exist for me right now. Besides which, an assertion of notability was made, so regardless, a speedy deletion is invalid. Chubbles (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is not available, but the cache still is. Click on "cache" above, and you'll see the previous article, including a link to a newspaper website which doesn't contain any references to the Spikes at all. And allegations of notability with no proof are pretty worthless. Corvus cornix (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the page was updated since then. I provided an access date which should link to this article [7]. Chubbles (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, that looks like a good link. Overturn speedy deletion, there's a reliable claim of notability. Corvus cornix (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - fair to overturn as out of process; however, I imagine you might need a better source than that to survive AfD (is charting a single in Ireland enough to establish notability?) so maybe keep looking for more! Wikidemo (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn - Enough importance/significance was listed in the article (praised by The Irish Times and album, "Monster", charted) such that CSD A7 did not apply. -- Jreferee t/c 19:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shibby (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I manage a pop punk band from the UK and need to create a wikipedia page for them, however the term Shibby is not allowed to be used. Can I ask for a FULL REVIEW as we really do need a page and I'm unsure as to why Shibby would not be allowed. For proof of Shibby's existence please see www.myspace.com/shibbyrock or www.shibbyrock.co.uk Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark msamusic (talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion No evidence that this band meets WP:BAND notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep salted. The page Shibby appears to have been protected as a repeatedly recreated nonsense page which had nothing to do with the band. However, as the band appears to have released a single EP, available only through iTunes, they don't seem to meet the notability requirements for bands, and so any page on them which would just get deleted very soon anyway. Additionally, the person requesting unsalting acknowledges his conflict of interest and has been inserting promotional material for this band into other articles (eg [8]). Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote your nascent pop-punk band. Come back when they're famous, or better still, wait for them to get famous enough that someone else wants to write an article about them. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted/Salted per WP:COI, WP:RS, and WP:BAND. Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 21:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - as per COI, no reliable sourcing and band policies. Rudget.talk 09:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Permit creation - The topic Shibby (band) regarding the UK pop punk band has never been deleted from Wikipedia. Comment Not that this affects my reasoning, but there is a band called Not Shibby. The term shibby comes from "Shibbying - stoner slang, used in the film Dude, Where's My Car? It means get stoned/drunk. Eg 'I shibby', 'we shibbed', 'that was some serious shibbying we did last night.' Shibby as an adjective can mean cool. ' They're a shibby band."[9] The "joke" of posting "shibby" in Wikipedia likely is the source of the multiple deletions. Clean up on isle 7! -- Jreferee t/c 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Normally, we would at least allow the contributor a chance to draft the article before being asked to defend the notability of the band. However, given the extensive history of vandalism at this title (even though it is not related to the band), I think the right thing to do for Wikipedia is to reverse the normal process in this case and request evidence that this band meets the generally accepted inclusion criteria before opening ourselves up to the cost and effort of fighting off the inevitable recurrence of vandalism. Keep deleted until and unless a draft has been created in the userspace which provides evidence that the band meets the inclusion criteria. And by the way, the band's manager should not be the person drafting the page. When they're famous enough for an encyclopedia article, someone else will write it. See WP:COI for more. Rossami (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Multiple reality show categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

There were eight reality show participants categories all closed as delete, precedent by the same admin on the same day. One of them, Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants CfD was overturned at DRV. By the same logic the remaining deletions, Category:The X Factor contestants, Category:Pop Idol contestants, Category:Fame Academy participants, Category:Dancing on Ice participants, Category:Celebrity Fit Club participants, Category:Big Brother UK contestants and Category:The Apprentice (UK) candidates should also be overturned and restored. Otto4711 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Xoloz closed Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants DRV. If Xoloz thinks the discussion for Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants DRV applies to the categories you listed above, then Xoloz can restore all of them. If not, you will need to post separate DRV requests for those not covered by that prior DRV discussion. -- Jreferee t/c 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Um yeah, that's what this would be, the DRV request for the unrestored categories. Otto4711 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Pumpkin Of Nyefar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

PROD contestation. Maurice Noble is one of the famous cartoonists, he worked and co-directed with Chuck Jones. At Maurice Noble, I find out that his last cartoon was done posthumously in 2004, but the link is red and says that an article was summarily deleted. I have not seen its content, but I would like to. Good article or lame stub, the last cartoon of Maurice Noble is a notable topic and I could develop what existed. (I've googled it a bit already.[10]) So I have contacted the delete admin who said to follow DRV, and here I am. Thank you. — Komusou ^talk @ 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - There doesn't seem to be enough reliable source material for the topic. Anchorage Daily News (search Pumpkin Nyefar AND section(all) AND date(12/1/2005 to 12/30/2005) brings up a mention of a showing at the Anchorage Museum of History and Art. Google books bring up something. Google blog has only three hits. You can add information about the 2004- Short animated film in Maurice Noble. The deleted text in its entirty was

  The Pumpkin of Nyefar 2004- Short animated film written by Tod Polson and Maurice Noble. Directed by Tod Polson and Mark Oftedal. The second film in the "Noble Tales" series created by animation legend Maurice Noble, and Maurices trainees, the "Noble Boys". The story is about Prince "Abadalluh" (named after Maurices Doctor), a prince who could marry any woman in his kingdom, but chooses to wait for true love. The Pumpkin story was inspired by a trip to Turkey that Maurice and Tod took while researching stories for "Noble Tales". Maurice passed away in 2001 before production began. Tod produced the film at the Thai Wang studios in Bangkok, with friend, and former Pixar animator Mark Oftedal. The "Pumpkin Of Nyefar", has shown in various festivals around the world. For more information visit www.pumpkinlover.com

-- Jreferee t/c 08:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as per Jreferee. Also note tha tthe article was written by Tod Polson. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nominator's comment: Fair enough. So I'm going to make it a dedicated subsection at Maurice Noble and turn the deleted article into an anchored redirect. If the subsection gains enough credentials there'll always be time for a split. Thank you for the review and links, you can close the DRV early if you wish. — Komusou ^talk @ 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)