Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GB3DR


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GB3DR

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Originally prodded and contested without improvement, this article provides no evidence of notability. It is simply an amateur radio repeater like any of the other hundreds or thousands worldwide. This is better covered (and is covered) on dedicated amateur radio websites. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question:, I have not looked at the article but can someone explain to me how a licensed amateur repeater is different in notability from a licensed FM broadcast station of only local interest? There are plenty of means to cover local radio stations too, besides using wiki as a catalog or directory or ad. If wiki wants to cover radio stations, how about just a single web pages that directs a query to an FCC database and sends results to google, automating an otherwise 2-step process for a user looking for information on radio stations without background clutter from goog?
 * Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Amateur radio repeaters is only used by licensed amateur radio users, and is also built/deployed by private users. If you don't know, a radio repeater simply rebroadcasts what comes into it...in this case, voice traffic (basically a way to increase the range of a user's broadcast). There isn't really a lot to compare between a repeater and an FM broadcast station...the repeater is just a small device attached to an antenna. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, so if a commercial broadcast station only retransmits nationally syndicated programs and ads and caters to a specific demographic, then it is not notable? Certainly the repeater is a bit much, maybe even a joke or hoax I haven't bothered to give it any thought, but licensed radio amateurs still provide disaster assistance and various other community services. Essentially all commercial stations target some specific audience and often that target makes it notable- confining your programs to a specific, specialized if you will group, can add notability not detract from it. So most commercial stations advertise, presumably getting their names into more secondary sources but the wiki guidelines normally don't consider that. What about cell towers, those can be quite works of art themselves? I'm not arguing for this, just trying to understand why radio stations are presumed notable by virtue of their license. I'm not even all that against it, directories can be important if no alt's exist.
 * Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as notability is not demonstrated nor proven with references. Does not meet the conditions of WP:BROADCAST and is, indeed, more like a broadcast translator which consensus and precedent say are not independently notable. The larger questions would best be discussed at WT:WPRS, in my opinion, where they will draw more specific comment. - Dravecky (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how this transmitter is any different than a relay which has well established consensus as being non-notable.--RadioFan (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is pointless, if an amateur wants information on a local repeater, information can be found (and would be found) on specialised sites, not Wikipedia. Also as the above paragraphs mention, this article is not notable. Unless this repeater has been covered in the news, or is of some real importance to the general public this article seems to be one that someone wants on Wikipedia, not one that people need and would look up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mih0891 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * * Comment CQ CQ CQ, Local commercial broadcast stations have plenty of alt information sources and don't need to be listed in an encyclopedia. Another local variant of 2 people telling jokes while people drive to work is notable and important why exactly?

I guess if you want the ARRL to be the list maintainer in this case, why not let the NAB maintain lists of AM/FM stations? Again, certainly the repeater is a bit much, but what about ham shacks? In this case, your neighbor with the rotating 11 meter 1/2 wave on a 50 ft tower in his backyard and 1kilowatt not-so-linear-amp on his CB rig would be more notable, especially if he makes national news for prompting US government to make federal zoning laws LOL, than the guy with a long-wire antenna and 5 watt 80 meter QRP rig who talks to foreigners with morse code in the middle of the night.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh .. (?). Does that mean delete? Power.corrupts (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment : I guess I would just say explicitly that I don't see a point to this article as it does not assert notability but I am trying to relate this to other wiki policies. It is even possible someone saw my prior comments comparing the amateur radio operator to commercial broadcast stations and put this up as a talking point, I don't see your typical hoaxers using this for a topic and I don't think many amateurs would see this as notable or worth documenting in wiki.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (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.