Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WTGO-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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WTGO-LP

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A search shows up no evidence that this meets WP:ORG which says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Dougweller (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any news coverage at all and no in-depth coverage of any type. If anyone finds sources I don't see I can re-evaluate.  Drawn Some (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Few sources seem to exist, but aren't registered radio stations generally considered notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, I found a deprecated essay on notability of radio and tv stations, apparently nobody knows how many there are, they estimated 40,000 in the U.S. alone, so no, they aren't inherently notable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply The FCC knows exactly how many radio and TV stations there are in the U.S. and, for the public's convenience, they publish a chart every quarter. Here's the one for December 31, 2008. So that's 4786 AM stations, 6427 FM stations, and 3040 non-commercial FM stations for a total of 14253.  Not 40,000 and not a mystery but an easily-obtained concrete number.  - Dravecky (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see here: Notability (media) Drawn Some (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the standard notablity is that if it has or has had an active FCC license that alone gives it notablity. This should be closed as such. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongest Keep Possible - Station has a FCC license, that gives it notablity. This notablity has precedent from other AfD discussions. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete 100 watts? The loose standards proposed for radio staion notability would not include this as "notable" at all.  "Low Power" means it is very low power indeed. Collect (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per years of consistent precedent, government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally presumed notable infrastructure in the same way as small towns and major highways. The essay at Notability (media) is informative in this topic. - Dravecky (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Licensed radio stations have consistently been held to be notable — beyond other links provided, see also the information on the common AfD outcomes page. I wouldn't mind seeing some sourcing added, but it's hardly the only article with that problem. Mlaffs (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Have I got this right? There is nothing in the guidelines that says an FCC licence per se makes a radio station notable. There is an essay WP:NMEthat says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." In other words, an FCC licence isn't a guarantee of notability. And there is a 'common outcomes' article that says flatly "are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." which doesn't agree with the essay. The last mention of radio on the talk page is Sept. 2007. Why isn't this in the guidelines if it's cut and dried? Isn't that what they are for, so that people can use them and make sensible decisions on whether or not to take an article to AfD? I'm not trying to be difficult, but this seems pretty messy and contradictory. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - The "guidelines" in the essay could be updated, since they haven't been touched since 2007. But as it stands, the precedent set is that license equals notablity. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Broadcasting stations with a full license and with original programming are notable. This one has only a non-commercial low power license, which limits it to a radius of 3.5 miles, and is therefore not automatically notable nor is it likely to have sources for notability.   On the same basis as we generally exclude college stations, we should exclude this one . DGG (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wattage is not the best determinant of notability and the WTGO-LP service area covers all of Lafayette, Indiana, and some of the surrounding area so unlike many college stations, this one does serve a significant population. (You only need 100,000 watts if you're in the middle of nowhere or can't get your transmitter any closer to town.) Also, this station does locally originate programming, a key test for the notability of a radio station. - Dravecky (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a test in that a station that does not originate programming is not notable. But it also has to be a significant station. Any refs that its even significant in the life of that town? DGG (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no test for a station...if it has or has had a license, it is notable. Period, plain and simple.  No tests, nothing like that. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Government licensed radio station, notable in the same way as a small town of 10000 or even 1000, or a highway only notable because it is a highway.  my name  inc Ottoman project  00:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That this applies to towns is an exception to our usual rules. It is most decidedly not true of highways. National and state routes are notable, not secondary or tertiary ones. This is secondary, to use your analogy. DGG (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As part of Generation Y, I know nothing about radio or radio stations, and less about Lafayette, Indiana, but a radio station serving 200,000 still seems notable enough, considering Wikipedia has articles for radio stations with smaller markets. See List of radio stations in New York.  my name  inc Ottoman project  02:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, it could be "secondary" or "tertiary" to use the highway terms, but it is still notable because it has a FCC license. License = Notablity.  This standard for notablity has precedent. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 02:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * VERY VERY STRONG KEEP This is OBVIOUSLY a retalliation against this article based on a prior disscussion.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast Dougweller & Drawn Some are behaving like "Deletion Hungry Wolves"! WTGO Station Manager "Brett" (formerly of WCRD) left a comment against the deletion of a notible syndicated radio program called The Full Armor of God Broadcast and that is definately why this AfD is happening. I wholeheartedly agree with my, Talk, Mlaffs and Dravecky. WP:N CLEARLY states that Notability is not measured in popularity or fame! This principal applies. This action is a clear mis-appropriation of authority. Someone in authority on Wikipedia should put a muzzle on these guys! They seem very DELETE HUNGRY!! This is ridiculous! Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment While the above AfD may have drawn Dougweller's attention to this article, I don't have any reason to believe that this nomination was not made in good faith. The article in its nominated state lacked references of the type that one would expect to find in a normal article to evidence notability. The nominator's statement suggests that they did search for sources to establish notability. The nominator quite correctly points out that written guidelines regarding notability standards for radio stations are contradictory. Those three steps — reading the article carefully, searching for sources themselves, and reviewing the relevant policy/guidelines — are exactly what I would expect of anyone considering nominating an article for deletion. I'd remind Ivanhoe610fa that faith — particularly the assumption of good faith — is just as important in this community as it is in others with which they're perhaps more familiar. Mlaffs (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  My Apologies I sincerly appologize for the misunderstanding and for my harsh words. Forgive me. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep is still my vote though.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 05:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep; precedent and practice are that licensed stations are notable enough. You're free to disagree with that standard if you wish, but it's beyond the purview of a single AFD to decide on such a major consensus change — and the reason that it is the current consensus is precisely that several months to years of discussion on the topic clearly identified that it's the only strictly objective metric that can be used without imposing an arbitrary standard or falling into the "delete because I don't care about radio stations" trap. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 29 May 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.