Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYAJ


 * 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.  Jujutacular  talk 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DYAJ

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

NN orgs (radio stations) that do not indicate significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind. See also Articles for deletion/DXET. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  05:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - DYER-TV is in fact a television station, not a radio station. It's important to exercise care to properly describe the articles when making a group nomination. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all - I have personally checked each of these articles. None assert notability and none are sourced.  Radio and television stations are not inherently notable.  They therefore fail WP:N and may be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't checked whether these stations are notable or not, but I must point out that "significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind" is not a requirement for notability. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records, so our inclusion criteria are not relative in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I draw your attention to the essay WP:MILL, which points out that, by a process of logic, the inclusion criteria MUST be relative, unless we are to include an article on every street, business, and private residence in the world. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That essay is far from being an accepted guideline, and the argument presented is far from a process of logic. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Every residential house has significant discussion in reliable independent sources by way of its filed documents relating to the building process. (2) Clearly not every residential house can have a page on Wikipedia, as we have neither the editors to create them, oversight them, or maintain them, and it would hopelessly decrease the project's signal to noise ratio.  (3) Therefore for items of which there are a very large number of highly-similar well documented instances, a higher standard than WP:N must be applied in assessing their claim to inclusion on Wikipedia.  What part of that isn't logical?  And then I take it the further step of saying (4), radio and television rebroadcasters are an item of which there are a very large number of highly-similar well documented instances. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio and television stations have been found generally notable and "importance over other radio stations of the same kind" is not a criteria for deletion. Wikipedia is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which provides that "licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios". --Bsherr (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * None of these articles assert that the stations have original programming, and the guideline you cite goes on to say that low wattage and local stations are likely to NOT be notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What the articles say is irrelevant. WP:AfD requires the nominator to make a good-faith effort to ascertain notability. The nominator does not assert they don't have original programming. Do you? I turned on DYIC-FM, and they were broadcasting locally produced programming. So at least one of them does. A good-faith effort would have shown that. --Bsherr (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all Their importance or programming doesn't matter when none of the articles contain a single reference. They currently not only fail WP:GNG but also WP:VERIFIABILITY which is the the mother of all wikipedia policies. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They are stubs. Stubs usually don't have references. And none of them have been templated for that. It's rather extreme to go right to deletion for lack of references on a non-BLP article. We could delete a third of Wikipedia on that logic. --Bsherr (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:VERIFIABILITY applies to all articles on wikipedia, including stubs. These articles have all been up for at least a year (most of them for a lot longer), plenty of time to add references. I do agree with you that tagging articles first is usually a good idea, but in these cases nothing suggests that they have recieved significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say significant coverage, are you making a notability argument? --Bsherr (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not when it comes to the discussion regarding their deletion, any article that is brought to AfD and completely fails WP:VERIFIABILITY should be deleted. I was just saying that when it comes to articles that are unsourced (with the exception of BLPs of course) but claim notability I personally think that it is better to tag them before bringing them here. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it. The problem is the nominator is required by the AfD guidelines to undertake a good-faith effort to identify sources before nominating for deletion. The nominator's nomination doesn't indicate that this occurred. Can anyone attest to that required good-faith effort? --Bsherr (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all, the bases for deletion having been pur forward by DustFormsWords and Pax:Vobiscum being significantly stronger than the reasons to keep the pages. Notability, let alone verifiability, has not been demonstrated.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't Articles for deletion/Common outcomes satisfy notability? --Bsherr (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because that is just an essay (strangely, it is not marked as such) and does not confer notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It documents a longstanding precedent. Why depart from it in only this case? --Bsherr (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it documents what one editor or a small handful of editors perceive to be a long-standing precedent. We follow notability guidelines only. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:39, 10 December 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.