Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYBK


 * 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. The point that none of the sources in the article provide any in-depth coverage is critical when evaluating the notability. WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is a rough guide, that says that "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally (emphasis mine) kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." This does not extend to local channels that broadcast to a small neighborhood. The extent of this channel is not clear from the article or this discussion and in any case, BCASTOUTCOMES is an information page, not a guideline or policy that can challenge the need for independent and significant sourcing.

DYBK

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete does not appear to pass WP:GNG (WP:NORG?) based on the references provided, and any media-specific radio guidelines must still pass GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since there's no community-endorsed SNG on the topic, the GNG applies; I can find no substantial coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dude, just wait! or Keep: RfC on NMEDIA is ongoing, so just wait. You might be doing all this "work" for absolutely nothing.  Just noticed, there are 6(!) refs in this article!  More than meets GNG. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 10:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG isn't based on the number of sources in the article but rather by the quality of the sources, and none of the sources currently in the article look to meet the requirements set out by the GNG. One's a dead link, one's clearly a mere mention, and the rest are government lists. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Sources 1 to 3 state that the station is licensed by the NTC. Sources 4 to 6 show that the station indicates some programming. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources contribute to any sort of significant coverage of the station. I'm also surprised you say source 6 indicates some programming, since source 6 is a dead link. Clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , source 4 indicates the station's service contract. Sources 5 and 6 (the creator of the article must've had problems in accessing the link) prove that the station originates some programming. Therefore, these sources (including 1 to 3) easily comply with WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and are definitely good enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. My keep stands. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those sources even approach being significant coverage. They're all textbook trivial mentions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Love how now 8(!) references are "textbook trivial mentions". I bet an FA with 104 references still wouldn't meet your definition of SIGCOV.  It meets GNG.  Move along....you and your moving goal posts. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My goalpost is the GNG, which does not move. It requires significant coverage, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's and Neutralhomer's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Delete Sources 1-5 do not actually discuss the subject, and source 6 is trivial coverage. Blatantly not notable. Mlb96 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV: the few sources a WP:BEFORE brings up passing mentions only; there is insufficent coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources to warrant GNG-passing stand alone article. ——  Serial  11:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)