Wikipedia talk:Notability (TV and radio stations)

This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 18 July 2021. The result of the discussion was keep.

This proposal is entirely biased to a United States point of view. That is inappropriate. R adiant _>|< 23:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly said that it cannot be used for other countries. They don't use the same classification system that the criteria is based upon. It's impossible for the criteria to be biased, as it's completely inapplicable to other countries. I suggest that other guidelines be used for foreign stations. No other indicator I could find is a better judge of whether a station is notable than the FCC class that it's in and I don't think we should abandon a proposal because it isn't globally applicable. Otherwise it's just based on guesswork. Do you have an alternate proposal? I'm really asking, not being sarcastic. :-) -- Kjkolb 08:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it should be rewritten, so it can be applied to other stations around the world. Compu ter Joe 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have revived this proposal (marked it as proposed instead of historical) and moved the page to "Wikipedia:Notability (U.S. broadcasters)". Hopefully someone can add to it to apply worldwide as you are suggesting. Will someone be bold and do it? :-) ----unforgettableid | talk to me 14:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "notability" is not and should not be necessary for inclusion of an otherwise legitimate article. If a sourced article can be written about a broadcaster (or any other topic) without original research, then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Also, I ageree with Radiant that any proposed policy should apply equally to all broadcasters regardless of country. --D Monack 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that notability is necessary for inclusion, as it is mentioned on AfD over a hundred times each day. Someone can write an an otherwise legitimate article about the house they live in, but it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines]] is also based upon notability. -- Kjkolb 08:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you could write an article about the house you live in that could pass the Wikipedia:No original research test, unless, say, you lived in the White House or the Bellagio.--דוד ♣ D Monack 13:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of top x songs of year x

Articles such as one on the "top 91 songs for the year 2001 according to WWWW 91.0 FM" should not be considered notable since again, we'd be dealing with thousands and thousands of such articles if they are included. Also, each station uses its own methodology, including some who essentially make up the list. This would also go for special "countdown weekends" that stations have, such as the "Top 500 Songs of All-Time". However, shows with proven chart methodologies based on traceable sources such as American Top 40 or Rick Dees Weekly Top 40 can be considered notable since they are based on sources (generally) readily available to the public.

I moved this from the article, as I don't think it applies to the proposal, though I totally agree with it. -- Kjkolb 08:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

High School radio stations?

This policy seems to indicate that college radio stations are notable. Is there a precedent on high school radio stations? I happened across one at SportsNet Radio, and I don't know what to do about it. --DDG 16:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that high school radio stations are probably not notable because they are likely to have very low power and thus minimal listenership. Information about a high school radio station can be merged into the article about the school. --Metropolitan90 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut?

I think the shortcut for this should be WP:TVR1. -TrackerTV 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

FM Radio Classes

It should be noted that Class C FM stations are the highest-powered ones (sometimes up to 100,000 watts or, in a few cases, more). Class B is second, followed by Class A (usually up to 6,000 watts). Class D stations are the small 10 watt stations and translators. Therefore, shouldn't all Class C stations have articles, as opposed to Class A? Just want to make this clear.

BTW: As far as AM is concerned, Classes A, B, and C are the reverse of this. Class D stations are usually lower-powered or daytime-only. (List of broadcast station classes)

I also think that market size should be a factor as well. A 3,000 watt FM station in the middle of nowhere is probably less noteable than a similar strength station serving a larger metropolitan area that shows up in Arbitron ratings books. I've been working on pages regarding Chicago radio stations, and it's amazing how many small stations there are on the outskirts of the metro area. It's mind boggling! Some of these stations I'm obviously leaving off, since there is often very little information about them. --Fightingirish 03:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of clarification, I changed the classes. Subbed Class C for Class A. This is factually correct, and I assume the original intent for the writer of this part of the article. --Fightingirish 19:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]