Talk:WIRX

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan 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.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's 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.

Copyright issues

This page was modeled after station WMAX-FM, using the same guidelines. The WIRX-FM historical facts have yet to be published by MichiGuide.com, the radio station guide for Michigan. Obviously, this article would not have been written for Wiki without a place to cite sources, but an entry for this station needed to exist in some short form without a history and based solely on entries from MichiGuide and the FCC database until a history can be compiled; and until the historical facts are published on MichiGuide, which we'll use for citation, the entry contains nothing in the history section at the moment. I have no response regarding the advertising claim made by your system, since the article was fashioned after an already approved article on this system that is in no way marked as advertising. Zackeast 23:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)zackeast[reply]

Actually, if you visited the site and didn't just copy/paste the link, you would've found: [1]. Regardless, I appreciate you upholding the general format. I'm gonna go ahead and do some cleanup on it now. JPG-GR 03:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the program director of this station. I wrote the entire history based on research I did and first-hand accounts from my employees. Since I am the author, there is permission to use the information. Quit deleting it.Zackeast 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

release into public domain notice has been posted to the website source page in question. http://www.wirx.com/?dept=49&pid=761. email sent to wiki to note this. Zackeast 04:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read over WP:COI before you make any more edits to this article. JPG-GR 04:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the information should be summarized, paraphrased, re-worded, and re-written to be included, it cannot be copied and pasted from another site, most especially when it has an advertising, non-neutral undertone. I left you many helpful links and guidelines on your talk page, so review those. However, if you are the director of the station, then I should point you to the conflict of interest guideline, which states you should not edit or create articles about yourself, your company, family, or friends, as you would be unable to edit them neutrally. Neutrality is one of the core policies of Wikipedia, and I'd request that you review them all. I would advise you to simply give your input on the article here on the talk page, and allow neutral editors to verify with reliable sources the information you'd like included. Feel free to include news articles, etc (items not affiliated with the station) as reference. Thanks. ^Ariel♥Gold 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well then, since both you and the other admin have time to email me back with every move i make, why dont you write the article for me? makes the most sense; feel like im wasting my time. i understand policies and procedures, but last time i checked, the most information about a subject comes from the person involved with it first hand, neutral or not. so, im going to avoid writing about anything further about the station. if you'd rather have a stub article than one from a less-neutral standpoint that can be improved upon in the future, by all means, continue to delete the work. i thought this website's goal was to have the most complete information possible; i think THAT goal needs to be upheld more than neutrality. neutrality can be fixed later. Zackeast 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something tells me you wouldn't be as committed to content-now/neutrality-later if you were to find out that someone who was fired from the station had written bad things about it, for instance. If someone is interested in the topic, they will follow the external links and research elsewhere, namely in this case, your article on your station's website. JPG-GR 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you might be right, but you might also be illogical. logic would say the article is better suited for the greater good to be posted in full researched text instead of a stub, and that the risk and probability of the aforementioned incident occuring is low. consider the majority, not the minority. or, as i said, do the people reading wikipedia a service and write the article yourself if the neutrality is such an issue. Zackeast 05:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of an encyclopedia, the information comes from neutral editors, not parties directly involved with specific subjects. Experts are consulted, and references are checked and properly cited. The WP:COI guideline is there for a reason, because when you are affiliated with a company, or person, you simply are highly unlikely to be able to remain neutral, and you'll have strong opinions that could cloud the neutrality of the subject matter. Having other editors write this for you was exactly what I suggested, you post information here, source it with a reference URL, and allow a neutral third party editor to verify it and then re-word it and incorporate it into the article. And I'm sorry, but the second Core policy of Wikipedia is neutrality, which is far more important than having "big articles rather than stubs". Even the founder of Wikipedia has said he feels that quality is more important than quantity. You may not agree with these views, but that is what sites such as MySpace are for, where content is not edited for neutrality.

We will be happy to expand the article if you provide information, but realize that information from the station's personal site is not considered a reliable source, (aside from things like format, schedule, guest DJs, etc.) and you'll need to provide other sources, such as local newspapers, TV stations, etc. for commentary on the station itself. Thanks for respecting the copyright guideline and not re-adding the violation! I hope you'll assist here in making the article a bit more complete. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so now you're saying the station's personal website isn't even a verifiable or usable source of information for the encyclopedia? that i have to depend on other media sources (who also have a local bias toward the station) to post for other people to take and edit? the historical content coming directly from a website affiliated with the organization isn't more reliable than one coming from a third-party website such as MichiGuide, which uses all FCC documentation, which ALSO keeps no record of historical happenings or format information? i'll avoid editing anything because neutrality is apparently so important, but to not be able to use the core historical documentation as a source is going to make the edits necessary to this article a little hard to do.Zackeast 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I request that you go read the policies. The reliable sources policy is very clear: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.. The station's site can be a source of the show's format, ~~schedules~~, guest DJs, ~~upcoming events~~, (my mistake, those things are not allowed on articles, per WP:NOT#DIR) most certainly, but as for commentary on the quality of the station, it can not a reliable source, as it is affiliated with the subject of the article, and thus, not a third-party source. Again, this is an Encyclopedia, not a fan site, not a blog, not a PR site, etc. Once more, I'm sorry that you don't agree with the core policies of Wikipedia, but they are policies, nevertheless. Are there articles here that don't meet all of guidelines? Most certainly, but the constant goal and work of editors is to work on the nearly 2 million articles here, so they conform to those policies. It is a constant project, but not one that is taken lightly by those who devote their time to it. ^Ariel♥Gold 05:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'd recommend deleting the entire entry on the history since there's nothing that will be able to be posted. i thought i read and knew the rules and apparently i was mistaken by all of my interpretations. this information will probably never be posted anyway, since a third-party will likely never be interested in writing about it, especially if they are another media source. it's sad, really. but, policies are policies. i guess i never realized the world of encyclopedic writing was subject to massive amounts of scrutiny. good luck WIRX article; may you flourish with useful information to educate the world for years to come.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackeast (talk • contribs)

Well, if that is the case, the article may not even meet the basic notability requirements for companies. A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Honestly I have not really looked at the article with regards to if it is notable, only with regards to not having copyright violations included. It could very well be that at some point, the article could be nominated for deletion, but helping to find secondary source articles that will verify the notability would keep this from happening. If any local news paper has had a story about it online, post the URL, we'll cite and reference it.

^Ariel♥Gold 06:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page modeled after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAX-FM, which presents the same source as WIRX.Zackeast 06:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not saying that page is in proper manual of style format.

. As I mentioned, Wikipedia is fluid, ever-changing, improving (hopefully) along the way. That article cites no references either, and doesn't specify why it is notable, so theoretically the same could be said about that one. Trust me, I'm the first to admit there are a lot of articles that may not belong here, or may have notability/neutrality issues, but we do what we can, and we try to address the most important things first, mainly, as evident below all editing boxes, copyright policy and verifiability, and of course, the five pillars. I've added references to the article, and we can keep an eye out for other third party sources. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added refs

Added FCC as a reference, and added Mid-west family broadcast group to external links, along with moving the URL from "Sources" into the article itself as a reference. ^Ariel♥Gold 06:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the Michguide.com guide lists Mid-West Family Broadcast Group as the owner, I don't believe that to be correct. Reading through the FCC ownership records, the station is licensed to WSJM, Inc. There are 7 individuals listed as part owners of WSJM, and each owner has a different ownership interest in each of the other groups that collectively are called Mid-West Family Broadcast Group. WSJM, Inc is not a subsidiary of a larger company called Mid-West Family Broadcast Group... I think it is more accurate to say that Mid-West is the entity that manages the group of stations, but isn't the owner of them. I'm not suggesting removing the link, but rather making the name in the infobox match the FCC database.StreamingRadioGuide 13:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]