Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellensburg community radio


 * 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.  So Why  06:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Ellensburg community radio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

POV, written by someone who is connected to the topic. No references, and Notability Alexf505 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 22:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete No FCC-licensed over-the-air broadcast (even an LP), no article. Doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is nothing inherently deletable about an article on a stream-only radio station, so long as that is covered in multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the topic. There is nothing showing in the piece, but let's take a look... THIS counts as ONE, it can be argued, coverage in the Daily Record of the launch. But it's just a snippet with a photo; "substantial" may be a stretch. THIS in The Observer, newspaper of Central Oregon University counts as TWO. More meat in this one. THIS from MyEllensburg.com is mostly video but also should count as a substantial published source. I suppose one could make a TOO SOON argument that there needs to be a little more water under the bridge and another meaty source or two to be mined — that the sum total of all of these isn't enough to provide verifiability for a WP piece; I'm more inclined to take the inclusionist path here. I believe GNG has been (barely) met. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 talk contribs 00:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. While Carrite is correct that an online, non-licensed internet radio stream can still have a Wikipedia article if it can be shown to clear WP:GNG, he isn't actually correctly evaluating whether the sources he's offering are doing that or not. "MyEllensburg" is a tourism site, not a media outlet, and the "article" there is quite plainly a PR piece rather than neutral coverage. University student media cannot be used to show notability either — it can be cited for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off by more solid sourcing, but because of its limited niche audience, subencyclopedic focus (e.g. university newspaper coverage is not going to get the president of that university's LGBT student association into Wikipedia on "GNG met because media coverage exists" grounds), and lack of wider distribution or archivability, it can't be a bringer of GNG if it's nearly the best you can do for sourcing. So neither of those count for anything at all, leaving us with only the Daily Record for GNG-carrying references — but since internet radio streams don't get an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, it takes more than just one GNG-carrying reference to pass GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. So no, we simply don't have what it takes here. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2017 (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.