Talk:WNCW

This page for WNCW is not at present an informational encyclopedia entry. There are too many self-publicising entries that use weasel words and other methods to advance the station's own interests. I accept that wncwgm might be a reliable source of information but if the person is, as I suspect, the general manager of the station he or she should beware of using it as a method for free publicity. It should be sufficient that the station will receive publicity from the inevitable link to the station's website as a citation.

It's strange that a community college could have such an entry for its radio station that so blatantly contravenes accepted rules for academic documents and publications. Therefore, I believe that this entry should be either trimmed down or removed and replaced. Otherwise, it amounts to spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.208.147 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree; it's odd that this comes from a nominally college radio station but doesn't show it by its content or structure. As it is, there is a huge amount of subjectivity involved in this article. I would much rather see the entire article rewritten, or some deletions made, before anything is added.

A long transcription of a speech from a WNCW CAB meeting in 2002 has recently been included verbatim. This inclusion is difficult for several reasons. The entry lacks citations, aside from a brief few words immediately before it. The entire transcription was included wholly verbatim. The only obvious editing was the addition of punctuation apparently added for clarity (it didn't work). The section seemed to be largely inconsequential conversational lingo. I believe that the section is unsuitable for anything short of a complete journal of WNCW history, which this article clearly is not. All those things conspired to make it a rambling and incomprehensible account of something that might - or might not - have been important - at the time. So, rather than try to decide what elements are appropriate for this article, and then rewrite the whole piece, I therefore deleted it entirely. --SonOfAJim (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This article seems ok to me..it`s objective and informative..there is always room for expansion and improvement but it looks allright the way it is in my opinion.Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)