Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates (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   delete. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a directory. Radio stations change programming, the link provided as a reference added as an external link to the main Coast To Coast AM article is more than enough information for an encyclopedia, no need to copy the information and try to maintain it here. Ridernyc (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, as WP:NOT a directory. Lets see if we can get it right this time.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being a directory would entail including radio stations' mailing addresses, phone numbers, staff lists, etc., not just listing them — as written, this doesn't constitute "being a directory" any more than any "List of radio stations in Foo" does. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a particularly convincig argument there. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not particularly a "lawyering" one either. Bearcat (talk) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that was somehow "uncivil". If you don't get why it's lawyerly, I can only refer you to Romeo and Juliet II/ii 42-50.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:WL is how it's uncivil. And you might want to reread the rest of it, too — or at least explain to me how anything I said constitutes some sort of argument from "Wikipedia policy for the sake of Wikipedia policy", which is what wikilawyering means. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, this list was originally started as a result of a CFD explicitly closing out as "listify" after somebody tried to categorize these stations in a "Coast to Coast AM affiliates" category, in obvious violation of WP:OCAT. Even as the "creator" (read that as "dutiful carrier-outer of CFD consensus" rather than "really wanted it personally"), I'm not at all wedded to keeping this, because I don't really think it's all that encyclopedic — but as written, it isn't actually a WP:NOT violation. The rest of Ridernyc's rationale is a better summary of why we probably shouldn't keep this, but it's not that it's a "directory" — it's that it's unmaintainable trivia that's subject to constant flux. My primary issue in the first discussion was that people were trying to turn it back into a category after CFD listified the original category — from a strictly encyclopedic perspective, I don't think we actually need this in either format. No vote, just two cents for the pot. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, little more than a directory, and potentially unmaintainable. If the reader wants to know where they can tune in to the programme, they can check their local listings as usual.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If the stations are notable the list is appropriate. NOT  DIRECTORY only applies to indiscriminate lists, and our standard for notability is discriminating.    DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that "if the stations are notable the list is appropriate" doesn't follow. This list is in effect something of an arbitrary intersection.  The stations are notable, and the programme is notable - the intersection of the two is not necessarily so.  This to me would not be on the same level as a list of stations in a given area (that would be a matter of apples and oranges) - it would seem more like a "List of guest appearances on show X by person Y", even if X and Y both have articles.  It's somewhere between a directory and a time-slice out of a programme listing.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The stations are notable, the show is notable, the fact that stations host the show is not notable. Not sure I follow the logic in your statement. Ridernyc (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Since the nature of Wikipedia is that information will and CAN change, whose to say the information in this article couldn't be updated if a station drops Coast to Coast. Coast to Coast is the number one talk program for overnights in the United States so I don't see stations pulling the plug quickly like they tend to do with other things on this show. Bearcat is right, whose to say (list of radio stations in (insert state or country) is notable either? If this article violates WP:NOTDIR why do those not violate it as well. Didn't we learn from the first nomination? --milonica (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I didn't say that this list should be kept; you might want to read my second comment in which I more clearly explain that we probably shouldn't. My only concern in making the "List of radio stations in X" comparison is in ensuring that we don't accidentally set an inappropriate precedent like "all lists of radio stations violate WP:NOTDIR" in the process. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * List of radio stations by region is totally different, they seldom if ever change. Ridernyc (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep and Merge - Useful list, needs updated and should be moved to Coast to Coast AM and incorporated into the article already available. This is done on several other pages about big name radio talk shows. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and other delete recommendations above. Wikipedia is not a radio guide. I don't see any need to maintain this list here; far better to refer readers to the show's official web site, which lists all the stations that broadcast the show and the times they broadcast it, and which is the only source used in this article anyway. If this article were kept, it would seem to justify the creation of articles containing lists of stations that broadcast any syndicated television or radio program, which I believe would be undesirable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful list created after previous discussion, categorizing by show is strongly deprecated, and how can a list of one kind of thing be "excessively narrow"? This list organizes data in a way no category can or should, allows listings for stations that do not or will not have independent articles, and while there is room for improvement in the list that's never a reason to call for its deletion. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTGUIDE are not applicable to this list.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is never a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not necessary as a list or as a category, nor even something to be merged back to the rock that it crawled out of. There is nothing inherently notable about being a radio station that happens to carry a particular show, whether its Rush Limbaugh or Coast to Coast AM.  If the point of the list is to show how many stations carry the show, then it can be mentioned within the article at whatever length seems reasonable.  On the other hand, if one is interested in finding out where they can tune in to hear "Coast to Coast AM", they can click on the link that is posted in the article about the show, which I would add is a hell of a lot more useful than this article.  Nobody tunes in a radio station by its call letters.   Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per several folks above and WP:NOTDIR as while the list can serve a useful navigational purpose, a reader seeking to find information on the affiliates would be far better served by a paragraph or two in the main article discussing the topic with an external link to the show's official site for an updated, complete listing. - Dravecky (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete violates WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:36, 4 February 2010 (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.