Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWSE


 * 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 no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

DWSE

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources, not notable. JDDJS (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:BROADCAST. Try Smile Radio 98.3 / 98.3 FM Bataan.--RioHondo (talk) 03:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Search results for 98.3 Bataan come out with links to their website. And since it's a primary source, it will not be used to test the subject's notability. 121.54.54.236 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that its been verified that the radio station exists, IMO you only need to demonstrate any of these 3 notability criteria per same guideline: large audience, long history or unique programming. This being one of the few FM stations in the entire province of Bataan with population close to 700,000 and with its own radio programs or shows (ergo not a relay station) as per website, the station is notable IMO.--RioHondo (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, WP:BROADCAST does not actually confer an exemption from having to reliably source the article's content. You're correct that any of the above would be sufficient notability for a keep if the article had actual sources in it, but a radio station can't just claim those things and still be kept if the article citess no sources — it's not the claim itself, but the quality of sourcing that can be provided to support the claim, that passes BROADCAST. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see a good number of provincial radio stations in the Philippines facing AfDs if strict application of in-depth coverage in reliable sources is followed, as there's not a lot of online sources in rural areas and provinces for the few media they have. For example, this radio station is like one of only 2 FM stations broadcasting from that province as per this government source. Another government source mentions a partnership between the radio station and a local government's information office. Apart from those, there's barely any RS that tackles the station in depth apart from the station's website. And this is just Bataan. There's 80 provinces more with their provincial media barely getting any coverage, eventhough they serve a large rural audience.--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem, however, is that we have a major issue with hoax articles being created about Philippine radio stations that actually don't exist at all when somebody goes looking for them — while that occasionally happens in other countries too, in the Philippines specifically it crosses the line into an outright epidemic. And people have created fake webpages to support the "existence" of their fake radio stations, too, so the mere fact that a station has a webpage isn't enough evidence in and of itself if the article is sourced nowhere else besides that. I didn't say there has to be a ton of sourcing — even just one or two reliable sources are enough, as long as they properly support that the station actually exists — but if no reliable sourcing is present then we have no way of being able to determine whether a station exists in the real world or just inside somebody's own head. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bearcat. It has been a long time since this kind of problem exists, not only here on English Wikipedia but also cross- and off-wiki. Not only fake stations but also fake channels and networks, TV and radio alike. Since there are no or not enough sources to support the subject, I have no choice but to have it deleted. I'm sorry. 121.54.54.236 (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep simply because these stations are usually kept and will also need familiar attention. SwisterTwister   talk  07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 14:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and anon. It's much better not to create such articles as the one discussed here especially if no reliable sources can be provided just like what Bearcat said. Sixth of March 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:BROADCAST They are a licensed full power broadcast station in a major market with a 30 year history. I added two sources to the article.  Just because these broadcast stations happen to exist outside the well documented industrialized world doesn't mean they are suddenly not notable.  Sourcing in other "CNN Speak" International markets may be more difficult to find, but it does not wipe out wikipedia's responsibility to provide information as available. Trackinfo (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2015 (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.