Talk:WPVM-LP

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

Initial edits

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

It looks like the station's new owner, Davyne Dial, has deleted the actual history of the station, leaving only what she feels is relevant to her cause/agenda. If this is to be used as an encyclopedia, then the old article should be brought back with the new info topping it off, as the actual history of the radio station is what is important. There has been much controversy over the last 2 years regarding the station, a full history seems important in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandycharlynn (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brandycharlynn, it appears that the only way I can answer this concern is with a 'disputed' tag on the article (which I have added now). Please read it. It invites a visit to this talk page where the POV differences you mention can be discussed. Any of this would require citations / reliable sources to cover what you state is 'much controversy' and new info v. actual history. This is way too vague and nebulous for me as a careful editor to get involved in reverting to an old version. By adding the maintnance tag and replying to you I am closing this as having been answered for requested help. Please understand that in the way this is worded, we need to obtain much more substantiated detail. As it stands now, this is just a vague content dispute without facts. Hence the tag. Wishing you the best, Fylbecatulous talk 13:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of defamation suit paragraph

Exercising WP:Be Bold, I removed the paragraph on the defamation suit based on WP:Notability, WP:Relevance, and then concerns over WP:Biography of Living Persons. Since none of the sources posted regarding the court case mention WPVM other than its tie to the plaintiff, I fail to see the notability or relevance of the suit in connection with the station's history. For example, the motivation of the defendant could well be related to other activities of the plaintiff - we simply don't know. In addition, the possible WP:Conflict of Interest charged in the Multiple Issues template raises all of this to another level - for example, is Wikipedia being used as an instrument in the controversies in Asheville? So without sources to tie the station to the court case, I believe we need to err on the side of caution regarding the people involved. Meanwhile, for everyone's convenience, here are the sources:

I understand some editors may disagree with the removal, but I believe this should be discussed before reinstating or re-working the material in question. Allreet (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you @Allreet:. I removed the paragraph again. Apparently, it was added back a few months ago but one of the subjects of this article added it back. I included back the Mountain Express article which discusses several other allegations. Cheers, Meanderingbartender (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove defamatory links.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

^[1]

"Amid heated controversy, WPVM charts a new course". Mountain Xpress. Retrieved November 4, 2015.
"Local Radio Station WPVM Experiences Hostile Takeover". ashevilleblog.com. Retrieved May 29, 2015.

Insert ^[2] Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

What I think should be changed:
Why it should be changed:
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Davyne Dial (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ These two links go to content that contains defamatory statements. See first link to newspaper article that describes the internal conflict and resulting lawsuit decision. The defendent is the main contirbutor to both the contested written articles that I am asking be removed.
^ https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/02/11/facebook-defamation-leads-500000-settlement-asheville/97740206/

Not done These sources seem to be reliable sources and thus their inclusion is warranted. Wikipedia does not remove sources just because they are negative towards a company. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] These two links go to content that contains defamatory statements. See first link to newspaper article that describes the internal conflict and resulting lawsuit decision. The defendent is the main contirbutor to both the contested written articles that I am asking be removed.

[2] ttps://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2017/02/11/facebook-defamation-leads-500000-settlement-asheville/97740206/

[1]

[2]