Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WMBP-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 redirect to WVVW-LP. Redirected by article creator. (non-admin closure) &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 05:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WMBP-LP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Standard searches did not reveal enough significant coverage in independent and reliable sources to meet threshold for notability according to Notability (media). Nothing to show a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 04:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As near as I can tell from its website, this is not an originating station in its own right — the core condition that a radio station has to meet to satisfy either "established broadcast history" or "unique programming". Rather, it appears to be a pure rebroadcaster of WVVW-LP, with no evidence of any unique programming separate from whatever's beamed in from Parkersburg. A station of that type doesn't get its own independent article; it gets a redirect to its programming source. Redirect to WVVW-LP. Bearcat (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: First, this station was signed on a little under 7 days ago. It is not clear what the format will be.  Some stations sign on, simulcast, while working out the kinks.  Second, the page has 4 sources, pretty good for a brand new station (most have none).  I think we are jumping the gun here. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I went BOLD: I am in too much pain to fight with deletionists this morning, so I redirected WMBP-LP and WVVP-LP to WVVW-LP and merged the information and sources. Thus begins the slippery slope. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The slippery slope"? Dude, take a chill pill. What we have here is four -LP stations with a common website, all 15 to 20 miles apart from each other at most, and one of your four sources was a Facebook post. The likelihood that they're ever going to be anything other than a common simulcast of a single station is pretty low, frankly — but if and when there is actually some RS evidence that they have started to air distinct programming from each other, we can always spin them back out into separate articles again when that time comes. Bearcat (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When we start merging station pages together (even if they are rebroadcasters), ones with highly reliable sources, one of them being the official Facebook page of the station (just as good as their own website), that is the beginning of the slippery slope in my opinion. For the record, I had a chill pill prior to my last post. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 07:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A radio station's own website is not an independent source that can confer notability, but a primary source. So you may have a point that their own Facebook is "just as good as their own website" — but what you're missing is that when it comes to demonstrating a radio station's notability, the "goodness" of their own website is a big fat zero. It can verify some facts (e.g. looking at the "artists played" scroll in the event of a dispute about their format), but it cannot count toward demonstrating the station's notability. And the consensus of WP:WPRS has always been that pure rebroadcasters get redirected to their programming source, not independent articles about each individual transmitter. This isn't a new consensus that's just emerged recently, or an unconsensual deviation from WP:NMEDIA — it's exactly the way things have always been, and you've previously participated in ensuring that said consensus was followed. So I'm really just not grokking your reaction here — you seem to be taking this way more personally than necessary. Bearcat (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said their website should be used as primary source, just a source. The primaries are the FCC website and Arbitron/Nielsen.  The notability comes from NMEDIA and the FCC website.


 * We can merge articles if there isn't any addition information, something that I whole-heartedly support. But when there is information relating to one station and not the others, a seperate article is and always should be necessary. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:02, 31 July 2015 (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.