Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information 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. Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Information Radio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. This is a small network of low-power tourist information radio stations, which is a class of radio station that is not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA -- the problem here being that these stations are now exempt from having to have a CRTC license at all, and thus do not pass NMEDIA's licensing condition. (For example, it's impossible for us to verify whether an exempt station is still in operation or not, because without a license they don't need to return to the CRTC for renewals or revocations, so there are no new "decisions" for the CRTC to publish.) None of the stations are the subject of any reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, and they were redirected to the main article about the parent company accordingly -- however, earlier today an anonymous IP reverted them all back to standalone articles again despite the lack of any valid or policy-compliant reason for doing so. I'd restore them all back to redirects again, but in reality the parent company fails WP:CORP as well -- literally the only sourcing present in its article is the same pre-exemption CRTC decisions that are sourcing the radio stations, with no evidence of the media coverage that's actually required. So, in reality, there's simply no legitimate basis for keeping the parent company or redirecting the stations back to it again -- they're all just plain deletes. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved in these articles, but I got a notification based on creating a redirect a long time ago. That said, from a brief glance, it looks like the deletion rationale here is contrary to WP:NTEMP. If they received CRTC approval in the past (and if this is considered to have been sufficient for them to have passed WP:NMEDIA at that time), why is it important that the renewals are no longer required? Ongoing coverage is not necessary, after all. Dekimasu よ! 17:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, being CRTC-licensed is not, in and of itself, a guaranteed permanent "keep forever" for a radio station regardless of its sourceability or lack thereof. The CRTC license documents can provide support for a temporary presumption of notability — but the station still fails the notability test in the end if real reliable sources besides the license documents themselves can never be provided. They provide temporary assistance in building an article early on — but they are not enough sourcing in and of themselves to get an article kept forever if no better sources can ever be located. And secondly, the reason it's important that the renewals are no longer required is that without those documents, it is no longer possible for us to properly verify things like whether the station is actually still operating or not, if it has ceased operation then when or why, and on and so forth. Before WP:WPRS started cracking down on these, we had articles that had spent ten years saying "It is unknown if the station is still in operation", because their license exemptions had been granted as early as 2003 — but the issue being that their operational status was not just unknown, but entirely unknowable, and that's why exempt-class stations can't be kept. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, I find 's reasoning persuasive. We can't keep what we can't verify. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:09, 7 February 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.