Talk:DZXL

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Radio Stations Low‑importance

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DZXL unsourced materials

Hmm, at some point MSJapan is also right, maybe this page needs more sufficient sources rather than the main website itself. For now, I reverted it back to its article form, but to all editors I hope you can find more reliable (either secondary or tertiary) sources for this article. But still I'm not convinced yet that such existing stations needs to be challenged and redirected to its main page. Though at some point, some of our network stations here in the Philippines is very privatious and very cautious when it comes to their profile history. I hope you won't mind this. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 04:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

@Atlantic306: Do you think this article has a consensus to redirect it to its main article? I don't think MSJapan doesn't aware on this. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 23:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of a consensus so have restored it for discussion- it does need references. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Fine, then let's discuss it. First of all, I don't appreciate the canvassing. This is not a new article, it's been around since 2008, and asking the person who reviews it in 2016 to come back and undo a redirect based on "please review it further" is not at all appropriate behavior.

I also fail to see how we're going to reach a consensus with two people HamHam wants to keep it, but there are literally no sources. I can't even source portions of the text via Google searching to anything better than a forum post, which may or may not have been made from or inserted into the article, but I will say that post had a pretty similar user name to a past contributor to this article. HamHam has indicated that sources may not exist. In short, somebody must have written this up not based on available information, but based on personal knowledge, and we have no way to verify anything stated in reliable sources.

Despite the newfound interest in this article in the last few days, this article has been here for years, I'm not sure it has ever been sourced, and it has been cut back repeatedly in the past for cruft and lack of sources. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this is an article that has been unsourced for more than five years, possibly closer to ten, and does not assert its notability. Given that we do not keep articles that are unsourced, we do not keep articles that don't meet notability, we can't verify a single thing that would make this article notable, and it has been indicated that sources may not exist, what possible encyclopedic reason is there to keep this article in its present format? I've asked for an answer to this question before and didn't get it. We can't just keep articles "just because"; at this point this fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:V. Conversely, I haven't seen anything besides an WP:ILIKEIT rationale to keep it as-is. MSJapan (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree the lack of references is the problem, perhaps if this discussion is inconclusive a compromise might be to AFD it as have seen some editors somehow come up with references nobody else can find for articles at AFD but I am neutral on the matter unless references are found, as its not a blp its not an immediate concern but it is a concern.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copying my opinion from my talk page: personally, I think a majority of the filipino radio station articles should be deleted or redirected because a majority of them are unsourced, or lack the references that are needed. Redirect or AFD are the best options here. Corkythehornetfan 01:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then what's the purpose of creating those articles then? Significantly, if some of the radio stations here in PHL though existed but majority of them needed to delete due to lack of sources, then what's the purpose of creating them anyway? Philippine stations only cares for their Intellectual property as they've asserted it thru the Philippine constitution. Thus they're very careful on what will their information might be given to the public. But I know that's not be a valid reason and notably out-of-this topic. More comments / opinions are still welcome. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 02:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be proved they exist then deletion should be the last option, offline sources are needed if online ones are not available imo Atlantic306 (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirecting this. I have seen similar articles about radio stations from Philippines at AfD recently and most of them were deleted. This fails WP:V and ideally should not be kept. I would suggest a redirect for this radio station to it's parent company and mention the redirection on the target article's talk page. This is a good compromise as it preserves the article's history. Should sources be found in the future, the redirect can be undone. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source reference has been added to the article by Supergabbyshoe (talk · contribs) who am pinging for their view Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is maybe the Gabbyshoe in this thread who seems to have added a fair bit of unsourced content in here in the first place? Also, not buying a 2016 reference for the unsourced 40 years of previous history that makes up the bulk of the article. MSJapan (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well have it your way. And anyways MSJapan, did you know the word forum? Yes Gabbyshoe maybe part of that but I think you didn't know that word yet. It's just only a comments by some Filipino who views / watch any networks or listen to any radio stations here in Manila, but we/they are not basing our sources here. I do see that you're already making a personal attack to some users here in Wikipedia. Did you really know the word civility? The way you talk to Gabbyshoe is just... I don't know... maybe rude one?Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 04:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do know what a forum is. I'm also going to point out that parts of this article were very definitely either posted to or taken from that thread by a user with a similar name to a user here. We have a policy called WP:DUCK which applies here, and as for material, you can find it, as I did, by doing a text block search on Google. Considering that this article is unsourced, you can't say that a text match from there to here didn't come from there unless you feel like hunting through years of edits on both sites to figure out exactly when something occurred. Forums are not acceptable sources here on Wikipedia, so any content in this article that may have been drawn from that forum cannot be used here. If you want to construe policy violation as a civility issue, go right ahead, but you're not going to win that argument either. I also feel there is no reason to accept a single source added for an event in 2016 to be suitable to source the rest of the history of the station, or to indicate anything besides standard news coverage at this point. Frankly, I don't need to take abuse from you over my "behavior" because you don't know how Wikipedia policies work. MSJapan (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced history

I have removed the following from the main article's history section as it is unsourced. This (or parts of it) may be reinstated but only when reliable sources are found. Diff of removal --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content here

The modern DZXL started as DZHP, then associated with Philippines Herald in the 1960s, when it was broadcast on 1130 kilocycles. In 1975, The fully automated classy music station DZHP became a drama-personality and adopted a new call sign – DWXL. The call letters lasted until 1987 when it changed again to its present DZXL. (Note that the "old DZXL ID" was owned by the Lopezes, thru ABS-CBN, but the station was closed by President Marcos in 1972).

The "new" DWXL/DZXL programming was formally launched in 1977 with a great line-up of soap opera and radio personalities. The “drama” segment was eight hours daily starting at 9am. Among the best known talents were Luz Fernandez, Matutina, Tony Angeles, Augusto Victa, Lito Legazpi, Myrna Rosales, Kris Daluz, Vangie Labalan, Mario O’hara, Fundador Soriano, Joey Galvez, and more. These pool of top-rated drama talents was the source of power and strength of dramas and “tele-serye” of DZXL.

This was made possible because of Wilfredo "Baby" Camomot, then Vice President of RMN. He orchestrated the drastic changes of RMN nationwide programming format from “classy” to “drama-personality” targeting the grassroot audience. The remaining hours of the 24/7 broadcast time was focused on personality and news.

The pioneering anchors/announcers was spearheaded by Fiorel Salvo with Johnny De Leon's "side-kick", Ngo-ngo (of Bataang Matamis fame). Others were Al Mendez, Nick Mendoza, Jun Recafrente, Ely Cruz Ramirez, et al. During the 1980s, Mel Tiangco, Jay Sonza and Bobby Guanzon came on board. In early 1990s, Rod Navarro signed in. The current anchors are listed below. These anchors/personalities were fully backed up by News Reporters whose names appear below (but it was deleted due to brevity).

At the start of the 1980s, the political climate in the country was changing drastically. The president’s health was deteriorating and the uneasiness and continuous anti-government rhetoric from those opposing the system was increasing. Hence, to cater to the changes, the station slowly refocused its programming to news and current affairs. News personnel were increased tremendously.

Field Reporters units were created. Max suquit was hired to head the department. Programs like “Over-A-Cup-Of Coffee” by Ka Doroy Valencia and “Manu-Mano” anchored by Fiorel Salvo dominated the airwaves. All other personality programs were loaded with up-to-the minute news reports.

“Breaking News” were heard first from DZXL. The station was also first to use an amateur radio group “Tiger Civic Action Group” to assist in the live traffic reports from the field covering the metropolitan Manila area morning until afternoon.

Another civic group “Voltax” composed of ordinary taxi drivers helped in the midnight public service program anchored by Ely Cruz Ramirez. Another pioneering program was Fiorel Salvo's “Job Match” which have been honored to help and assist in the safe overseas and local job hunting of the jobless workforce.

Discussion

Any further discussions go here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still left with a strong case of WP:NOTDIR as the article stands now, and I can't find anything about the station's history in any reliable sources. There's lots of mentions, but that's significant to the people involved, not the station itself, and if there was something out there, it shouldn't be that hard to find. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl942 (talk · contribs) after your edits in line with policy, do you maintain your view of redirect? Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]