Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPPJ (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   merge to Point Park University. Stifle (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

WPPJ
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of notability, fails to satisfy WP:ORG dougweller (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral You may want to post details of this nomination to WP:WPRS. I don't know whether the fact this is a unlicensed campus station allows for this article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Merge and redirect While stations licensed by the FCC (or were at one time licensed) enjoy a presumption of notability here, this station is not currently licensed and I'm not finding any references that indicate that it was in the past. Appears to be a carrier current station. Also having difficulty locating references to support its notability.  2 brief mentions in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette with single sentence calendar entries isn't very significant. --Rtphokie (talk) 13:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Upon further reflection, merging this article into the university's article is the wisest decision. This subject lacks sufficient notability for its own article but it is certainly worth coverage in Point Park University.--Rtphokie (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Merge/Redirect - All radio stations, regardless if they are licensed now or not (see WGMS (defunct)) are notable. As second resort, the page should be renamed WPPJ (defunct). Since I seem to be in the minority on this one, I change my vote to Merge/Redirect. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • January 3, 2009 @ 05:11
 * Comment That move would violate WP:NAME. JPG-GR (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - How so? If the station is defunct, it would go along the same lines as WGMS (defunct). -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • December 31, 2008 @ 04:20
 * WGMS is at WGMS (defunct), presumably due to not being the primary use found on the dab page. JPG-GR (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I've pointed out on the talk page there, WGMS is not defunct; it has merely changed format. WGMS (defunct) should be deleted and the content merged into the appropriate articles for those stations under their current call letters.  121a0012 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Radio stations that were at one time licensed are considered notable. Radio stations that were never licensed aren't automatically notable simply by being radio stations.  I'm not finding any evidence that this was ever more than just a carrier current station.  A carrier current station like this could be notable if there is significant coverage out there on it, but I'm not finding any.  --Rtphokie (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WERW, a carrier current station, survived a AfD on it's notability, so that isn't particularly true. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • January 2, 2009 @ 12:51
 * Comment In WERW's case, there was at least some minimal coverage of the station itself from other sources. I'm having difficulty find that for WPPJ.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * , ...the second one is not an article, but the Pittsburgh Trib does mention the station in it's "Radio Guide". -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • January 2, 2009 @ 13:57
 * ....any number of these articles. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • January 2, 2009 @ 13:59
 * Comment is about the artist, not the station, inclusion in a list like  establishes existence but not necessarily notability, the remaining articles from the campus newspaper.  I'm still not convinced that a small student newspaper is the kind of significant coverage WP:N is looking for.  WP:N requires "Significant coverage" which cover the subject "directly in detail".  There is a natural bias towards things which involve students of that college which brings the independence of the student newspaper into question for purposes of establishing notability.  It's not that student newspapers are bad sources.  They make a great resource for citations but a poor one for establishing notability.  Has this station been the subject of an article or received any coverage in any other media (books, TV interview with the station manager, etc.) anywhere off campus?--Rtphokie (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from radio and television website PBRTV.com none that I can find. That doesn't mean the station isn't notable though, it just means it hasn't gotten coverage outside the campus newspaper....and with some college stations this is true....only the campus newspaper bothers to do write-ups about their station.  Let's see what the people from WP:WPRS have to say on this. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • January 2, 2009 @ 15:06
 * Delete While the stations certainly seems to exist, as campus-only unlicensed radio station it cannot be given the same benefit of the doubt that an FCC-licensed facility would get and I'm not finding the sort of coverage by even the local Pittburgh papers that I would expect of a notable college radio station.  If this article had much better (read: any) sourcing that went to proving notability, I could be persuaded to change my mind but as it stands this article just doesn't cross the threshold. - Dravecky (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you want to add the many articles from the campus newspaper I have linked to above, please feel free. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • January 3, 2009 @ 01:34
 * On further review, merge and redirect seems the more prudent course of action. - Dravecky (talk) 04:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: unlicensed carrier-current stations have no independent existence from their operators; absent significant unrelated-third-party coverage in reliable sources, this article should be merged into the page for institution which operates it. 121a0012 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Point Park University as it straddles the line for WP:N. If this were licensed, it would be worthy of a standalone article; if there were more coverage by independent reliable sources, it would also be similarly worthy... but lacking both, the material should be incorporated into the article about the university. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 3 January 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.