Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DZRV-FM (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. While there's a consensus for keeping the article, I do feel some of the policy justifications are fairly weak, or not well addressed in this discussion. It might be best for this to be reviewed again later in a couple months (or longer, preferably). I could re-list the AfD, but considering the previous one had two such relists with no additional feedback, I don't think prolonging this would be helpful. Accordingly, this is closed as 'keep.' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

DZRV-FM
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Relist following a no-consensus closure; the problem was that there was still only one "vote" each way after three full weeks, not that there was really any strong disagreement. In the original discussion, a user showed sources which verified that a radio transmitter broadcasts on this frequency in this location; however, the sources failed right across the board to provide any verification that the station produces any of its own original programming, rather than simply rebroadcasting programming produced elsewhere. They also mostly failed to verify that "DZRV" is actually its call sign, as all but one of them referred to the station as DWRV, but that's not the fatal issue here. A station whose article is located at the wrong name can just be moved — but producing some original programming is one of the four essential and non-negotiable criteria that a radio station always has to meet to even be notable in the first place, so a station that can't properly verify that it passes that criterion doesn't even get to have an article at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: After what I saw in the last discussion, and the backing evidence presented, I think the article is a keeper. Three references seems good, that GeoCities mirror needs to go.  I would like to see all the evidence presented in the last AfD added to the article.  I know nothing of Filipino radio stations, just looking at this from an article standpoint. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:40 on November 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, don't bother responding, I won't reply.  I am not looking for a conversation, debate, or even a limrick.  My !vote stands. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:42 on November 26, 2019 (UTC)
 * I respond for the benefit of other people reading this discussion, not for you, so I'm really not interested in what you're looking for — the last time you and I tangled on a radio station that didn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion rules, you were in the wrong, and ran to somebody else for assistance in trying to fling shit at my face but he backed me up and not you, and yet I'm the bad guy here? Not how that works, dude. At any rate, none of the evidence presented in the last AfD was dispositive — literally all we saw was proof that a transmitter exists on this frequency in this town, but with a different call sign than the title of this article suggests. And whatever the station's call sign is or isn't, we saw exactly zero evidence that it originates any of its own programming and isn't just a relay of another station — but originating at least some of its own programming is one of the non-negotiable core conditions that a radio station always has to meet to qualify for an article per WP:NMEDIA. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Based on the evidences posted in the previous discussion, including the ones by 4meter4. It's better to keep the article as is. I have explained more than enough in the previous discussion. And I won't explain any further. SUPER ASTIG 01:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you have not "explained more than enough" — as I already pointed out above, the first discussion completely failed to provide any evidence that this station satisfies one of the four non-negotiable core conditions for the notability of a radio station: directly originating at least some of its own standalone programming, as contrasted with simply being a rebroadcaster of a station from somewhere else. Rebroadcasters are not independently notable, so to qualify for an article a station must, always and without exception, show hard proof that it is an originating station and not just a rebroadcaster. Demonstrating that is not optional; it is a mandatory and non-negotiable requirement that a radio station must always be able to show. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are articles of some stations in the US which hold sources from only FCC, Broadcasting Yearbooks, Radio-Locator & Arbitron. The same goes for this article. Among the sources in this article are the Yearbook from PSA and/or the recent record from NTC. Hence, this is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. Arguing with me or anyone who has the same vote as mine in this discussion won't change anything. With all due respect, I already explained more than enough as this is not a debate. And I'll still stand with my vote. So, BE IT. PERIOD. SUPER ASTIG 01:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not say that the problem here has anything to do with what types of sources there are — the fact that they're government sources is not the problem, because government sources are unavoidably necessary to an extent in radio station articles. The problem is that none of the sources offer any confirmation that the station creates any of its own original programming, as opposed to simply being a rebroadcaster of programming produced elsewhere — which is a core condition that every radio station always has to meet to qualify for an article at all. It has nothing to do with whether the sources are government ones or not — it has to do with whether the sources are properly verifying that the station meets all of the necessary notability criteria or not. Even in the United States, a station which is only a rebroadcaster of another station, and does not actually create any of its own distinct programming at all, gets a redirect to its programming source and not a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep: It was already agreed to keep it and I don't understand why delete this again when it has been resolved (with all the technical jargons included). It hasn't been two months since this was voted for keep. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The first discussion closed no consensus, not keep. It has never been "agreed" to keep it. Bearcat (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion was closed as no consensus, hence defaulted as keep. But, it doesn't mean it will be kept. There's a possibility for a rediscussion to be open, like this one. SUPER ASTIG 01:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I read it again. There was really no consensus. Sorry. I am changing my keep vote to no vote. —Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: It is a stub. I would suggest those who want this article to stay long to start working on expanding it, or else, i am not surprised if it will be nominated for deletion again. If this radio station is really significant, I believe it is not too difficult for you (those who voted to KEEP it) to find more info to make this article looks more encyclopedic - Jay (talk) 07:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes the website's standards for notability. Capt. Milokan (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What source verifies that it passes the "must originate some of its own programming" condition for the notability of radio stations? Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Relist or Draft Delete - Non notable and fails WP:GNG - Jay (talk) 04:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBROADCAST. Bearcat's original nom, and in particular his reponse to Superastig is a spot on analysis. Onel 5969  TT me 11:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment as I'm rather neutral as to whether it should be kept or removed for the benefit of the encyclopedia. It certainly needs to be moved.  On the positive side, it does seem to have its own programming, as indicated by the presence of a "station manager" on the geocities page.  On the negative side, is that geocities page really a reliable source, even in the most liberal interpretation?  On the positive side, the philstar source indicates the station carries some network programming, indicating that it isn't just a translator or repeater, but chooses its own programming.  Also on the plus side, it seems to have a strong signal within a very major metropolitan area, indicating a topic of inherent encyclopedic interest.  On the negative side... there's sure not much to build an encyclopedia article from.  The article says the station has its own studios, which is HIGHLY indicative of original programming, but I couldn't verify from the sources that it actually does have its own studios.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 18:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The geocities website is an old website of a regional sector of Philippine News Agency. It is archived and outdated, with its recent post dated late 2005. Though I'm neutral re: that link, there may be some old, but good sources there. It's up to them if that link should be retained or let go. SUPER ASTIG 23:54, 3 December 2019 (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.