Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KKHP-LP


 * 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. Any interested editor may flag the article for improvement respectively. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  01:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

KKHP-LP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Even WP:BCASTOUTCOMES says ". Lower power radio stations limited to a small neighborhood, such as Part 15 operations in the United States or stations with a VF# callsign in Canada, are not inherently notable, although they may be kept if some real notability can be demonstrated." There is no such real notability demonstrated beyond having a license etc. WP is not a directory. Jytdog (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC) (Striking "low power" thing as inaccurate/modify. Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC))

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
 * Jytdog (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Per NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES, LPFM stations ARE notable and this has been backed up by AfDs in the past. The "neighborhood" that KKHP serves has a population of about 20,000+.  KKHP serves three seperate towns with a 60dBu coverage, 54dBu coverage is well into Chico and that's a population of about 87,000.  I'd say that's a pretty big "neighborhood".  KMEC-LP serves Ukiah, California, which holds a population of around 16,000 people.  Again, another large "neighborhood".


 * You appear to have LPFMs and Part 15s confused. LPFMs are legal stations, licensed by the FCC, and can broadcast from 1 to 100 watts.  Part 15s, are NOT legal stations (ie: pirate stations) and typically only broadcast about 1 milliwatt, that's 1/100th of an actual watt.  Part 15s that only broadcast 1 milliwatt are sometimes left alone, but are subject to being shutdown by the FCC.  Ones that broadcast waaay more than that 1 milliwatt are subject to fines and seizure of equipment.  LPFMs are NOT the same as Canadian VF stations.   and I actually had a discussion on this.  Canadian VF stations are the same as US Part 15s.  That's why there is a push to remove those.  They aren't notable per NMEDIA.


 * I have updated the KKHP and KMEC pages with clear sources from various sources. These are sufficient for all other pages and bring it well into GNG, V, and N.  I would ask that  withdraw his AfDs. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:18 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * I struggle with the notion that somehow WP has become a directory of radio stations where there is no demonstration of meeting basic GNG via significant discussions in independent sources... Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Struggle all you like, this is backed up by strong and consistant community consensus and policy. I could say the same about bugs or TV episodes, but those are backed up by consensus as well. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:20 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * In both articles you added four references; three from the FCC showing the station exists and who owns it, and the the fourth from Nielsen. Here is what is actually  at the link for KKHP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KKHP-FM.".  And Here is what is actually  at the link for KMEC-LP: "No Summer 2016 data found for KMEC-LP"   In my view none of these sources helps much showing that the station is worthy of a WP article - sure they would be great if WP was a directory.  But we aren't.  There needs to be signficant discussion in independent sources to meet GNG.  There ~appears~ to be some WikiProject creating a walled garden going on here. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've said several "my" and "I" statements. Your view or your opinion doesn't matter.  What does matter is the community's view and the community's opinion...and in turn the community's consensus.  That consensus is that radio stations are notable, be them AM, FM, HD, or LP.  The entire consensus is covered in NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES.  This is not a walled garden, this is a community of users who work on these articles, keep them updated backed by consistent strong consensus from the community.  I'm sorry that you can't accept that. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:17 on September 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't know what you mean by "my" and "I" statements. Whatever - this seems to be upsetting to you and I am sorry for that. Let's just focus on the work - do these articles meet basic GNG or not?  Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * LPs aren't the same thing as Part 15s or VFs; they're a class of station that does still have to have an FCC license, while the problem with Part 15s and VFs is that they're exempted from having to have a license. (And the reason there were so many VF stations to delete is that those stations did formerly have to have CRTC licenses as well, making them eligible for inclusion per NMEDIA by the same criteria as any other radio station — their change of status from licensed to license-exempt changed the notability equation after those articles already existed.) The determining factor, however, is not the presence of the words "low power" in the article — it's the existence or non-existence of an FCC/CRTC broadcasting license, regardless of the transmitter power that is or isn't involved. Yes, we ultimately do want improved sourcing beyond just the FCC documents, but the FCC documents are enough sourcing in and of themselves to cover the basic notability criterion. There are, for example, important technical details that a radio station's article needs to contain for which the FCC documents are the only possible source — newspaper coverage about a radio station is never, for example, going to get into the station's ERP or HAAT stats, so we have to turn to the FCC database for those. So no, the FCC documents aren't enough sourcing by themselves to get a radio station's article up to GA or FA status — but they are enough sourcing by themselves to cover off the basic includability issue. Keep and flag for refimprove. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and work at beefing up the articles. Both stations have a broadcast history, which is one of the criteria noted in NMEDIA, with KMEC-LP's running approximately 11 years at this point. And in my time here, I can't remember ever seeing an article that was nominated for deletion on a licensed, operating LPFM not survive the discussion. I'm travelling for work, so can't get into the heavy lifting, but finding an additional source that could flesh out KMEC-LP somewhat took seconds, and I've dropped a note for Neutralhomer with that information. Mlaffs (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2016 (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.