Talk:CIWS-FM

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Commission decision on licence change, and notability[edit]

On one hand the section about the Commission's decision on licence change seems overblown for such a trivial matter. On the other hand trying to remove it felt like someone was trying to whitewash the article. Then I realized why I felt awkward trying to reconcile those conflicting conclusions. With that section removed there's basically nothing left. Then I realized that the ONLY refs for the article are the Commission refs. The article has exactly ZERO Reliable Sources to establish Notability for this radio station. According to this article, the most noteworthy information about it is that it exists, and that the license change was declined. If this article does not get some Reliable Sources to establish Notability then I may simply nominate the entire article for deletion. Pinging article creator Bearcat - I see you're still active but you haven't been to this article in a few years. Other recently active editors should catch this talk page. Alsee (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, mere existence for radio stations seems to be enough to permit an article. The real issue is that the article was created without sources, and a December edit (correctly) removed unsourced and promotional content. This bit about licensing was all that was left. Sorry state for the article, to be sure. I would support deletion, if policy permits it. I just don't know enough about the notability requirements for radio stations with valid call letters. Scr★pIron^IV 16:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for radio stations, as spelled out at WP:NMEDIA, is that a radio station is presumed notable if (a) it holds a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority, and it (b) originates at least some of its own programming rather than being a pure rebroadcaster. The problem with a lot of radio station articles, which I'm fully aware of, is that because most radio stations have existed for a long time rather than being brand new in the 2010s, nearly all of our radio station articles (including this one) were created seven or eight or ten years ago when Wikipedia was newer and our referencing rules weren't as strict as they are now — but the individual articles weren't necessarily always modified to keep pace with the tightening of the referencing rules. For the record, the licensing documents themselves do count as valid sourcing for a radio station's article — they're obviously not all the sourcing you would require if you wanted the article to be considered good, but they are enough sourcing to cover off the basic notability/includability question.

I do make an effort to get radio station articles up to contemporary expectations when a problem is brought to my attention, so I'll look after this one as well, but I wasn't, for the record, the original creator here; I simply neutralized and moved a more advertorially toned article that was originally created by somebody else at the "Whistle Radio" title, and the promotional advertisement has since been deleted from the edit history. I will, however, still take a stab at this over the next few days. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat's points ~~below~~above- this article does meet the standard. There are, I think, numerous WP articles on community licensed stations, many no better sourced than this one. So I wonder- why pick on these guys? But I will try to improve the sourcing as well.Kootenayvolcano (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC) (Note: Top-posted comment moved down to avoid a confusing discussion structure.)[reply]

I removed my Notability tag from the article. I was unfamiliar with subject specific guideline basically saying "it exists" is presumed to be sufficient in this case. I'm not fighting that guideline here, but I'll comment that I'm not thrilled with that sort of standard. General Notability Guidelines requiring sourcing don't merely ensure articles are "important enough" to keep, they ensure that we actually have some sources with which to build an article. Alsee (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]