Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHMA-FM


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 01:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

CHMA-FM

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article fails to meet notability guidelines. I initially prodded it in February 2010 and no improvement has been made on that front, despite quite a few significant (and unsourced) content additions during that time. A check of Google and news sources reveal no mention beyond their own marketing. Addionne (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * SNOW KEEP I might as well just withdraw. It is clear from the arguments below that radio articles are exempt from providing reliable sources or verifiable information.  -Addionne (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No Vote Just giving this that I found on news.google.com when searching for chma fm. http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/salon/article/1254049 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.72.104 (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The station is described in third party media as the "campus and community radio station" for Sackville, New Brunswick, and the Stereophonic Festival described in the article also receives independent media attention.  This 2007 CBC Radio 3 interview describes the station as being "in the national spotlight this week for its 4th annual Stereophonic musical festival."  Gets a bit of press in a 2006 Billboard article about a proposed fee's impact on Canadian college stations. It's a small-town outfit, to be sure, but evidently notable in that context. The article could use a trim, but I think there's enough to justify the article under WP:BROADCAST.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The Billboard article is a good find - and although it is not significant, it is more than a passing mention, as they do mention the online radio service the station provides and interview it's manager. That said - according to WP:ORG, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not help to build notability.  As for the other sources, they talk exclusively about the Stereophonic festival, with only a mention of CHMA.  That provides a convincing argument as to the notability of the concert, however I don't think it's enough to push notability on its organizer.  -Addionne (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As a licensed broadcast station which originates a portion of its own programming, it satisfies the de facto guideline for broadcast station notability which has prevailed in AFDs for the past couple of years. In addition, per Arxiloxos, it appears to satisfy WP:ORG and WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't forget about WP:WAX.  Also, original broadcasting is different from the unique broadcasting mentioned in WP:BROADCAST. -Addionne (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a government-licensed broadcaster with programming unique to that station, crossing the notability threshold for radio stations. Coverage in reliable third-party sources also point to the notability of this station. - Dravecky (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Edison, this is the way I understand we have treated radio stations for some time now.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Edison, Dravecky and Milowent. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Whether or not other articles exist, this article fails to verify through reliable sources either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming.  This is the requirement for radio stations in WP:BROADCAST. -Addionne (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A Lesson: Per precedent set in previous AfDs and discussions, ALL radio and televisions that have or have had a license are notable. This includes FM, AM, MW (for the US's NWS stations) and LP stations in radio, along with TV, DT, LP, LD, CA, and CD stations in television.  They are notable, the precedent has been set, notablilty has been established. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: At present, Recnet.com, the site used for Canadian radio station coverage maps is down due to a move in Recnet facilities. This should be over in early November and the Recnet maps brought back up at that time.  In the mean time, do not consider the lack of these maps to mean the station has no license or coverage area. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Precedent over Guidelines I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I am interpreting the guidelines in this case rather than precedent - and I believe the article does not meet the guideline, even if other articles exist or prior AfDs have gone against these guidelines for whatever reasons.  In my opinion, using only licensing as terms for notability means that all information in the article (except the call letters) can be sourced from the station's self-produced press and other sources which may or may not contain actually reliable information.  (Because these sources are fine as secondary sources once notability has been established...)  If we choose that precedent over the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST, it brings into question the accuracy of all radio-related articles on Wikipedia.  This is why the guidelines exist?  -Addionne (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine: But at present, this a snow Keep, so it is best to just withdraw and move on. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 00:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool We can have a who slew of articles, filled with unverifiable data, that fail to meet the WP:GNG to which all other articles are subject and are never even considered for deleted because they have a single listing in a database somewhere.  -Addionne (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That "database somewhere" is the Federal Communications Commission (or FCC) in the US in the US and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (or CRTC) in Canada. These are notable federal government organizations, the highest of reliable sources.  So yeah, they are to never be considered for deletion as they have reliable sources, meet the GNG, have precedent in previous discussions and AfDs and they all fall under WP:BROADCAST.  So yeah, never to be considered. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:20, 21 October 2010 (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.