Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIWS-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 delete.  Daniel  04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

CIWS-FM

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a local radio station, originally an internet broadcaster, speedy-deleted at another title. I've decided to send this through AfD because I'm uncertain whether the station's government license constitutes a minimal claim of notability. Still, delete for non-notability and COI concerns. (The author admits affiliation with the station in my most recent talk archive.) Xoloz 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AFDP, the criteria that radio stations have typically had to meet to survive here, in the absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations, are (a) to be licensed by the appropriate regulatory body, and (b) to originate at least part of its programming schedule in its own studios. This station meets both of those; we don't have any other criteria for determining the notability or non-notability of a radio station beyond that. COI issues aren't really a bulletproof deletion argument; those can be cleaned up. I've already taken a weedwhacker to the few truly egregious bits of the article, and while what remains could use a few minor touch-ups for writing style there isn't anything left that presents neutrality issues. COI means "give this an extra once-over for NPOV", not "delete this on principle no matter how NPOV it is". So I guess that puts me on the keep side. Bearcat 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, as I mentioned on the talk page this entry is very similar to some 50 entries in the category Community Radio Stations in Canada. I'm not sure why Xoloz would mark for delete without doing adequate research.

Also, while you have changed the main page from WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, which is fine, there is a precedent on the Community radio stations in Canada category for sticking with WhiStle Radio as the main page (Ridge Radio).

I'm unclear as to why COI issues are being raised. The station is a not-for-profit, so while I am affiliated with the station, there is no monetary gain to be had.

Last, the section Community Radio in Canada wasn't "egregious", at least, if you understand the word to mean "notably bad". Perhaps it was off topic, and should have been a link to somehwhere else, but community radio in Canada is a special type of radio licence, quite different from a commerical station (or the CBC), and the section in Community Radio doesn't fully describe what the term means in Canada.

WhiStle Radio 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ridge Radio and RAV-FM are different because they don't have CXXX-format call signs. If a radio station has one, then Wikipedia policy requires that to be the article title. Ridge and RAV, however, have a completely different call sign format that consists of a mix of letters and numbers (Ridge's is "VEK565" and RAV's is "CFU758") and is far too obscure to be usable as an article title. And actually, Ridge is apparently defunct and might well be deletable in its current form.
 * As for the "community radio in Canada" section, that information should be added to the community radio article if it isn't already there, not to individual radio stations. Bearcat 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Bearcat. GreenJoe 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat for the policy. Call letters is the better system. I don't want you thinking that I thoughtlessly used WhiStle Radio as the title though. My thinking was that most people would use the name WhiStle Radio for a search (I'm sure only those in and around W-S will look up this entry). I note that you have re-directed WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, so it all washes out anyhow.

And I will add the information about Community Radio to the proper place. Never having added information to Wikipedia before I was a bit hesitant, but I see now there are plenty of checks and balances. Thanks for your support Bearcat and GreenJoe. WhiStle Radio 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Bearcat, in your appeal to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, you appear to be predicting from past AfD's what other participants in this AfD are going to recommend. This is an odd way for you (or anybody) to participate in an AfD. Shouldn't you advance your own opinion about the nominated article instead of trying to predict what others will say? Your lamenting the "absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations" is equally strange; what's wrong with Neutral point of view, No original research, Verifiability, and What Wikipedia is not? The question we should be asking here is, is it possible to write an encyclopedia article here that passes these policies? The appeal to Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is flawed for at least two other reasons. One, notability is not a blanket; it makes no sense to say all radio stations that satisfy criteria (a) and (b) are "notable," because to write a neutral verifiable encyclopedia article on a radio station, or on anything, we need multiple non-trivial independent sources. That's what notability means on Wikipedia. See also Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions. Two, consensus can change; previous AfD's are not court cases, and they do not serve as "precedents." For these reasons (and maybe others I'm not thinking of), Articles for deletion/Common outcomes notes at the top that "This page is not policy" (bold in original). Now, we need to actually investigate whether it's possible to write a neutral verifiable article here. Guess not. Delete. Finally, as an explanation, please note that Neutral point of view doesn't just mean that the tone should be neutral. It means that all points of view from reliable sources, that have investigated the topic in-depth, should be represented. Thus, in a case like this, where no non-trivial reliable sources are evident, a neutral article is impossible. And no, the government-issued licence, which regurgitates what the "applicant" wrote on the application, is not a reliable source. Pan Dan 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any kind of "prediction"; I'm stating what the standing precedent is. And while precedent may not be policy, precedent most certainly is binding unless and until somebody can come up with a cogent and compelling reason to revise or drop the existing precedent. That's what precedent means. Bearcat 21:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan Dan, I disagree with your statement that a government-issued licence is not a "reliable source." It shows that WhiStle Radio is a licenced community station, which is my claim, as well as the things that follow (e.g., WhiStle Radio is not-for-profit, call letters can be found in a predictable registry, power claimed can be verified). In deciding to delete my entry your sole, unstated, reason seems to be that I'm the author and I'm affiliated with the station. I'm still unclear as to why you ignore the 50 precedents I cited. Is the information I provide materially different? WhiStle Radio 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The government-issued license is a reliable source for the attributes you mention. Likewise, my passport and drivers license are reliable sources for similarly trivial factoids about me. But Wikipedia is not a directory and we need more than that--significant coverage in 3rd-party sources--for an encyclopedia article. The non-trivial information on that government website is verified only by the applicant and has been noted by no sources independent of the station, as far as I can tell. No, Conflict of interest has nothing to do with my recommendation. As Bearcat correctly noted, conflict of interest is not a reason to delete. If you're unclear why I ignored the 50 other radio station articles you cited, then you should read the 2nd paragraph of my previous comment again. Pan Dan 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another element of Pan Dan's comments that I find disturbing is that he seems to confuse *his inability* to verify with whether the facts I am asserting can be verified with whether they actually can. The activities of WhiStle Radio have been reported in five newspapers and on the radio (I have one copy of one radio segment). I am still unclear as to why Pan Dan is suggesting this entry be deleted, and why he is ignoring the 50 other radio stations. I do note that his tone is surprisingly, and inappropriately, angry. I am curious if those who oversee Wikipedia approve of such a tone from their administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.54.218 (talk • contribs)
 * "The activities of WhiStle Radio have been reported in five newspapers" -- ok, now we're getting somewhere! The whole point of this discussion to have many editors, including you, look for and evaluate what sources are available. Please provide the citations to the newspaper articles you mean. Since you're still unclear why I am ignoring the 50 other radio station articles, let me repost one of my earlier links: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. If I sound angry to you, it's probably because I'm arguing to delete an article that's close to your heart--you called it "my entry" earlier. You may have an inappropriate sense that you own the article. This is one of the reasons Wikipedia strongly discourages editors from editing articles on topics that are close to them. I should point out that I'm not an administrator, as you suggest. I'm just an editor with the same privileges as you. (Which reminds me--please remember to log in and sign your comments as you had been doing up till your last comment.) Pan Dan 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: CRTC licence yes. Broadcasting on FM...apparently not yet due to lack of cash. "We are not on the air and we have not yet set a date for launch"as per FAQ on their website. Canuckle 19:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against creating an article if the station actually buys a transmitter and goes on the air. Per their website, they are not even doing webcasts, except when they broadcast junior sports games. Having a license does not make a would-be broadcaster notable when he isn't broadcasting. A complete 50 watt FM station in a box can be purchased for under $4000 US. Come back when you have a regular broadcast schedule and have been written up in independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage (more than directory listings). Edison 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison. Plus no evidence of independent reliable sources, and no independent ghits, suggesting no notability.  THF 10:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pan Dan I will remember to login. "What about article x" ... does this apply - as I think this through I don't think so. I'm saying that the Category Community Radio stations in Canada should include all community radio stations, and I have demonstrated that we are one. I'm not saying we're as famous (or other adjective) as other community stations, just that we, like the other stations, have a CRTC license and must/want to operate within a certain legal framework. So for this type of entry it is the category that meets notability, not each individual entry. In fact, if some community stations are allowed and some blocked, the reliability of the category is diminished, unless you change the name to "some notable community stations in Canada".

I can point you to a recent article on the web about our station (e.g. but I have two problems with this. The first is that the CRTC is the only primary source - that is the only source that can ultimately verify my claim that we are a community station (of course, that doesn't mean we're notable), and second, newspaper internet articles have a limited life and the Wikipedia entry will soon become outdated as the link fails.

I'm not sure how TedFrank concludes the CRTC is not a reliable source, please elaborate. That we webcast spirit hockey can be verified on the Spirit Homepage, which I did reference and the OPJHL website too. The statement of who the founder is can be found on whistleradio.com (and in the article I referenced above). True, that Ryan Fabro was the first announcer has not been sourced, but the claim is verifiable in principal and has not been contested - at most you would strike the sentence, not delete the article.
 * Comment Feel free to cite newspaper articles. They do not need to be online; the online link is just for convenience. If it is a really obscure paper, the relevant info can be quoted (in a snip short enough to be "fair use") so it appears in the footnote, or can be quoted/summarized in the talk page. I really encourage you to market your station, find volunteers, get a reported to do an article about it, and get on the air. The sources say you won't even do a webcast until there is another game, and that makes you little more than a stadium PA announcer with a web hookup via a computer. Doesn't Canada require broadcasters to actually broadcast to keep a license? You could probably get secondhand equipment on EBAY for a few hundred dollars. Edison 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The activities of WhiStle Radio have been followed by both local papers (Stouffville Sun, Stouffville Free Press). When I say "followed" I mean the story line of: group formed to apply, group applies, group gets licence, group looking for on-air volunteers, group fundraising ... has been run over the past two years in both papers. I don't know if you'd call them obscure, they have ciruclation of several thousand. On the other hand no one outside of W-S has likely heard of them. The Stouffville Sun is owned by one of Canada's largest newspaper chains (metroland).

We've also had a short write-up in the Oakville Beaver (how Canadian is that, eh), another metroland newspaper. That was about our Stouffville Spirit webcasts. There was also a similar article in a Northern Ontario paper.

We've been featured on Q107's (CILQ) morning show, a large Toronto classic rock station, 'cause John Derringer (the main man) lives in W-S, and CIUT a campus radio station at the University of Toronto (the program we were on is also on the Sirus network). We've also been featured on Rogers TV, the cable company serving York Region.

Is this stuff I can put in the article? Does it matter for an encylopedia?

I do think we're more than a stadium PA announcer - at least, as much as any play-by-play program is. We have true (and I might add excellent) live play-by-play with "colour" commentary.

And I do see the theme emerging that "WhiStle Radio may have a CRTC license yet is still only a part-time web station and so doesn't qualify as notable". This argument is somewhat easier for me to understand, although I don't agree.

Aside: Canadian regulations give us 2 years from the date of license to get on the air. The cost of the transmitter isn't the only cost; consequently we've got a project plan in place (and have explored several different options). WhiStle Radio 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the first 2 paragraphs of your comment are the most important. After all, it's those newspaper articles that we can use as sources to write a Wikipedia article. It would be great to follow the excellent advice in the first 3 sentences of Edison's most recent comment. If you can show that your group has been the focus of several newspaper articles (not just mentioned in passing), then we will know that a Wikipedia article can be written here. Pan Dan 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my user-id. (formely WhiStle Radio). I do have archives of the newspaper articles about WhiStle Radio, but it sounds like I should just ask someone local, who has been following the station, to write the article for me. Would be much simpler all around. To make sure I don't have someone's work go to waste, sounds like I'm better off waiting until we're actually broadcasting. DJ-Jim 22:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison Giggy  UCP 03:46, 15 July 2007 (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.