Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2WOW


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2WOW

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable radio station. All sources are either primary, or incidental to the subject, and no other sources found. Tagged for notability concerns for over 3 months without improvement Mayalld (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Legally licensed radio station with more than just a primary source. That no one is working on it, nor that $x time has passed according to the Deletion policy.  It is a reason to improve.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 13:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The first source is primary, the second self-published, and the third really doesn't go into much detail about the station, focusing instead on its founder. I don't know what the precedent is on whether being a 'legally licensed radio station' confers notability, but I'd be inclined to say delete since we have no (or at best only one) significant coverage in a reliable source. If anyone has more luck that Mayalld and me in finding sources or previous consensus I'll be happy to reconsider. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per my note below, licensed stations are usually considered defacto notable, and independent sources are only required to verify any claim "most popular" etc. Primary only sources are considered ok for defacto notable articles to establish their existance, although it is always better with more sources.  At least the AFDs I have seen on radio stations supports this.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then of course keep instead. Thanks Dennis. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Being licensed isnt a criteria for notability. The lack of any second or thrid party sources deems this non-notable. --neon white talk 17:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as government licensed broadcast radio stations are notable per countless precedents and the "broadcast media" section of WP:NME which argues that most broadcasters are part of the local infrastructure and geography, in a way that other sorts of businesses are not. - Dravecky (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum And I've also expanded the article and included several references from reliable third-party sources. I'm about as far from Australia as you can get so perhaps somebody a bit closer will have access to still more applicable sources. - Dravecky (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Every AFD I have seen on radio stations have always said the same, that a station that is legally licensed by a government is defacto notable and sources are required to verify any claims, but NOT to establish notability. Pirate stations or unlicensed require additional proof of notability like any other article.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every article is required to meet basic criteria for notability. THere are no exemptions. --neon white talk 00:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure of your source. Notability_(TV_and_radio_stations) was abandoned since it was too US centric.  At that time, the consensus was that radio stations at the college level and higher automatically met criteria diff.  Even now that seems to be the case, see List of campus radio stations.  As I have stated, there appears to exist a consensus that all licensed stations meet criteria, pirate and small unlicenced stations must meet wp:GNG standards.  Of course we want to verify they exist and add sources where we can, but they are considered automatically notable.  Same with network TV stations, high schools, and all kinds of other classes of organizations.  I just got through an AFD on a Grandmaster chess player, where again, all you have to do is demonstrate that the claim of Grandmaster is valid itself.  That alone is "notable".  Same here, being a licenced radio station is "notable" by itself.   If you can show me a guideline or policy that says this isn't the case, I would be happy to look at it.     D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dennis Brown and Dravecky. The improvements Dravecky made to the article are enough to establish this radio station's notability. If that's not enough, there are plenty of reliable sources about this radio station as seen in this Google News Archive search. Cunard (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the support is appreciated but so as not to accidentally mislead anybody I feel obligated to point out that some of the "Wow FM" hits found by the Google News are for a station (possibly defunct) in Malaysia. - Dravecky (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NME is not a policy and therefore no points made based on this should be considered valid. The subject must meet the standards at WP:N. There are currently no sources in the article that i would consider reliable second party sources. --neon white talk 00:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask "didn't you see all those third-party references I added to the article?" but I now see that you did and that you deleted them from the article. I always try to assume good faith but please consider that assumption under review at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources need to be verifiable. If you just cite a publication without page numbers and quotes, it's not verifiable. It's policy that users should be able to check information. --neon white talk 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Citing a source without page numbers and quotes doesn't make the information unverifiable. It maye be more difficult to verify, but removing the source altogether makes verification even more difficult. DHowell (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:N isn't a policy either, it is simply a guideline. And everyone is free to discuss based on WP:NME, any other essay, policy, guideline or lackthereof.  You are free to disagree with those arguments.  My contention is that certain organization are notable if they have exactly zero sources.  This includes universities, incorporated cities, licenced TV and radio stations and similar.  The consensus in previous AFDs seem to agree.  I have no issue with you arguing against the consensus, and of course, you are free to use any policy or guideline, or simply WP:IAR if you choose in those arguments, just like everyone else.  I understand your point, but in this circumstance, you are simply mistaken.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 01:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As personal essays have no community consensus they cannot be used as the basis for deletion. --neon white talk 17:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but as Dennis is not arguing for deletion, what is your point? DHowell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment unrelated to afd If the article is kept it need to be moved to Wow FM as this appears to be the subject of the article and the subject which is outlines in the lead paragraph. --neon white talk 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it would need to stay 2WOW as that is their call letters, per Naming_conventions.   D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 00:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree the subject of the article is the radio station not their call sign. Articles should be titled using the most common term for the subject and i think this afd has proven that 2WOW is not commonly used. All the sources, including the radio station itself always refer to WOW FM and never 2WOW, to title it as that is confusing as it is incredible unlikely to be searched for as that title. With all guidelines and policies there are always exceptions based on common sense. As there is no article at the title Wow FM, it's logical to move it or at least have a disambiguation page there to aid navigation. --neon white talk 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources do refer to the callsign as well as the branding but in any case, as "Wow FM" at best this would need to be redirected from a disambiguation page. Given the article for Wow FM 103.5 and the several "Wow FM"-branded stations in the US that a Google search turns up, the article is better served at 2WOW than at "Wow FM (Australia)" or some other disambiguation scheme. - Dravecky (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum Indeed, this highlighted the need for exactly such a disambiguation page as an aid to navigation so I have created it at WOW FM and populated it with at least five of the stations to which is applies. - Dravecky (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. We're up to ten references now.  I'd like to see a little more information in the infobox.. wattage, etc, but article is shaping up.  NME may be only an essay, but it is appropriate to link to in AFDs if only to avoid explaining broadcast markets in every single AFD.  Radio stations are part of the local infrastructure and geography, so we try to cover them consistently, just like we cover high schools, public utilities, railroads, etc.  It's just basic intelligence about a locale; look at the CIA World Factbook some time.  Even in a two-page summary about a country, they take note of the broadcasters. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not disagreeing with keeping the article in this instance, and not dismissing NME as having helpful elements. However, I do disagree strongly with the notion of licensed stations having inherent notability and here is an example where such an argument was totally inappropriate and thankfully proved spurious. Murtoa (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That example was at 1611, off the dial and a narrow band station (not the same thing at all). Most I know agree that a full power station, on the dial, that is legally licensed by a recognized country, is defacto notable.  It appears this article has other issues that offended someone, and some of the rationals by editors in your example were simply mistaken.  Gene93ksummed it up best in that example.    D ENNIS B ROWN  (T) (C) 12:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the 3XX article failed at AfD precisely because there was no proof available that it was a licensed broadcast radio station. Several of the folks who positively referenced the notability of licensed radio stations also !voted "delete" in that discussion because that did not apply to apparently unlicensed 3XX. - Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the above comments and recognise 3XX had additional issues. I would only add however that the lack of licensing proof as reason for the failed AfD is a presumption only, since no reason was actually provided in its determination. Murtoa (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Licensed broadcast stations are notable precisely because experience shows that there is nearly always reliable source coverage to be found for them (even if it sometimes difficult to find on the net). And in this case such coverage has indeed been found. DHowell (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Licensed radio station, and citations in local press show notability--Takver (talk) 22:40, 19 November 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.