Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations/Archive 2016

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


RFC: when are community radio stations notable?

Community stations in the UK have no different notability rules than other kinds of radio stations. They are not automatically non-notable. WP:NMEDIA is not applicable to radio stations outside North America, and preferably this guideline should be edited to reflect a world point of view. WP:GNG is still the way to prove the subject is notable. Local media are permitted to be used as sources to demonstrate notability. License information from national authorities can be used as an independent source that assists in proving notability. Having a permanent license and originating unique programming are indications that the subject is likely to be notable but do not definitely prove it like sources would. Mass nomination of radio station articles for deletion is strongly discouraged. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We need to reach consensus on when/if community radio stations are notable. None of WP:BROADCAST, WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NMEDIA have the status of policy, however some argue that long-standing norms suggest that broadcast radio stations with a license from a national regulator (OFCOM in the UK, FCC in the USA etc) and independent notes of existence in local media are notable. Others argue that some/all of these stations are not notable - pointing to the lack of significant secondary references in books and other reliable sources. So the question is this: is a permanent licensed broadcast radio station notable, however small the area of broadcast? If not, how big does the area have to be? Is the standard of having been noted in (let's say) national media as per WP:GNG relevant? JMWt (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to newcomers: I have collapsed some of the debate below to aid the readability of the page. JMWt (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Brief statements of support/opposition

While I recognize that an RfC can happen in the form of threaded debate, this one seems completely unwieldy, and so I'm going to add my opinion here, expecting that others will probably want to do the same. LjL (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose: a permanent station is not automatically notable; the area of broadcast is not necessarily relevant, while WP:GNG, being (as the name says) a general notability guideline, most certainly applies as it does to most other topics. A more-than-passing mention in multiple secondary reliable sources should be required. LjL (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

RFC Feedback

Yes they are per continued community consensus, per NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES and NUMEROUS AfDs over the years. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I would say not. Suggesting that despite an obvious failure to demonstrate that community radio stations (however small) generally meet the GNG that they're "notable" is an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Citing NMEDIA rather ignores the text of the relevant section, which holds that local radio stations may be notable under certain circumstances. It not only does not stipulate that all local radio stations are notable no matter the size and amount of non-primary media coverage, but finishes with "Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles." Ravenswing 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm also opposed to this. There is no settled consensus that should allow us to have articles based on no sourcing or bare mentions and this means that, if permitted, such articles will be permastubs or entirely reliant on orginal research their content. If Verifiability means anything then we need to have sources to say anything. Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
NMEDIA does not confer, and never has conferred, an exemption from having to reliably source the article — so there is no conflict with Wikipedia's sourcing requirements. (I'll admit that some radio station articles aren't following it correctly — we have an especially horrendous problem with stations in the Philippines not being properly sourced or sourceable, for example — but that's the fault of the editors involved in creating those articles, not a flaw in NMEDIA.) The only thing NMEDIA does is establish what constitutes a valid and keepable claim of notability — and it's entirely correct in what the basic standard should be and is. But that basic claim still has to be sourced, because as with any other subject-specific inclusion guideline it's not the claim itself, but the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim, that determines whether the guideline has been passed or not. So NMEDIA does not grant any radio station a "no sourcing required" freebie that would conflict with either WP:V or WP:GNG — a radio station can still be deleted if it proves entirely unsourceable, such as a hoax article about a nonexistent radio station, or redirected if it actually exists solely as a rebroadcaster of a larger parent service.
But as with any other topic that has a subject-specific inclusion standard governing it, once the basic criterion can be reliably sourced as true the article is no longer deletable just for not already being in better shape than it is, because article content does not determine notability. An elected Member of Parliament, for example, is always an automatic permanent keep under WP:NPOL as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been elected to Parliament; a winner of a notable literary award is always an automatic permanent keep under WP:NAUTHOR as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they won the award; a winner of an Oscar or a BAFTA or a Screenie award is always an automatic permanent keep under our rules for film industry occupations as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they won the award, and on and so forth — once the basic SNG has been properly sourced as true, quality issues with the article (e.g. stubby vs. substantive, more sources needed, etc.) are certainly still treated and flagged as maintenance issues but can no longer get the article deleted outright. It takes more sourcing and substance to get the article's quality class bumped up from "stub" to C, B, A, GA or FA, certainly — but the basic claim of notability that the article needs to make to be keepable does not need to be any stronger than "is sourceable as passing the relevant SNG for this class of topic".
Licensed radio stations which originate at least a portion of their own programming lineups are not further separated into notable vs. non-notable camps on any additional criterion beyond the holding of a broadcast license — once that criterion can be properly sourced as true, no special evidence needs to be shown that would make it more notable than other stations that hold broadcast licenses. No secondary criterion exists, nor should one exist, which would mean that some licensed radio stations get into Wikipedia while other licensed radio stations are still excluded — because there's no further criterion which can possibly be drawn at any objective boundary that precludes subjective deletion arguments of the "delete because I live 3,000 miles away so I've never heard of it" variety.
I admit that some of the radio stations under discussion were citing no sources, and were instead written much more like advertisements than encyclopedia articles — but that's on the editors involved, and does not suggest that there's anything wrong with the basic inclusion standard for radio stations as outlined here. No change is needed to NMEDIA; some user education is needed to ensure that editors of radio station articles follow NMEDIA better than they have been, but that's not the same thing as the guideline itself being flawed. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • There is consistent, strong community consensus that radio station articles are notable. While I agree that sources are needed. There is a way to have a stub article with sources. For example, WKDE-FM is a stub, but a well-sourced stub. Four sources, two from the FCC, one from Arbitron and one from Broadcasting Magazine. Four highly reliable sources makes this a well-sourced stub. This could be done on each and every radio station stub we have. I'm attempted to do just that with Virginia based stations, but it is slow work because it is just me. But with more people on this project, it could be done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to ask @Spartaz: and @Ravenswing: whether they think WKDE-FM has sufficient significant secondary sources to be notable. JMWt (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Don't care so much about sources here as the paucity of meaningful information. This permastub is tantamount to a directory listing. Unless there is sourced information we shouldn't host standalone articles of this type though I'd be OK with seeing list articles for such stations by a reasonable geographical division o aggregate these articles. Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, because that's what we need more of....lists. Wikipedia is turning into an indiscriminate pile of lists because we keep merging or deleting articles. I'll bet you'll tell me next that WKEY (AM), WINC (AM), WCLG (AM), and WBCM-LP are without "meaningful information" and are "tantamount to a directory listing".
How about this...instead of merging and deleting articles, or creating more unnecessary lists, how about you all try expanding the ones we have. If you think they are "directory listings" and without "meaningful information", then add some. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
to be fair, the issue is of notability, and therefore the point being made is that sources don't exist in order to prove that the station is notable as per WP:GNG. I also ought to say that this issue has come up because I've opposed the AfD of a lot of community radio stations recently. JMWt (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
First and foremost, the US doesn't have "community radio stations". That's more of a British, Australian and Canadian thing. We have LPFMs, and while those do focus on one single community, in most cases they serve more than one.
Unfortunately, WPRS typically focuses on US and Canadian radio stations. I'm not sure we have anyone who focuses on stations outside those two countries. So, alot of UK and Philippine radio stations have been deleted. The Philippines, for whatever reason, have some issues with fake/false radio station articles.
NMEDIA and to some extent BCASTOUTCOMES focus on US and Canadian radio stations as well. We should have seperate rules/policies for US/Canada and other countries, but again that's because we don't have anyone focusing on those countries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
In that case I may be one of the few that cares about British community radio stations. In my view the issues here relating to notability are exactly the same. JMWt (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
RFS Hello, if 3rd party sources indicate that a radio station is notable or well known then if the source is reliable then the station is reliable Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, but the requirements of WP:GNG are for significant secondary sources, and recent AfD NOM have argued that brief mentions of existence are not enough. JMWt (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
not to meet the GNG they clearly are not. The sourcing for the AFD in question noted two one line mentions of the station providing music in the context of two other events and a single line in a book to the effect that a license was held. This does not come anywhere close to meeting the GNG. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That may be for British stations, but US and Canadian stations have always fallen under GNG when they are per NMEDIA rules. Let's not lump British and US/Canadian stations together. Just because British stations are being axed, doesn't mean they all should.
Each radio station article in the US has a link to it's license in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) website. Likewise, each radio station article in Canada has a link to it's license in the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) website. Both of the FCC and CRTC are operated by their respective governments. So, an FCC link or a CRTC link is as reliable of a source as one can get. That in and of itself is enough to meet GNG.
Beyond that in the US, each article has a link to Arbitron, which we use as a secondary format source. I use a Broadcasting Magazine link (actually from their Broadcasting Yearbook) for launch dates and the like. Broadcasting Magazine is another reliable source backed by several GAN and FAC discussions. If they say it's notable, it's notable.
There are plenty of sources out there and they do exist that can show US and Canadian radio station articles meet GNG. Again, let's not lump them all together. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
wait, the AfD had a license from OFCOM, the equivalent of an FCC license. In fact all of the community station AfD I opposed had permanent OFCOM broadcasting licenses. If an FCC license is enough to meet GNG then an OFCOM license is. If it isn't then the FCC license isn't. There is no difference here. JMWt (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, I can't speak for British stations. I know nothing about them. I do know that NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES are all about US and Canadian stations. So, again, we should not lump US, Canadian, British and every other countries radio stations together. NMEDIA and BCASTOUTCOMES are for US/Canada, not the UK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we? That makes zero sense. What is notable in the USA should be notable everywhere if licensed by an equivalent national regulator. Anyway, I don't have time for more today. JMWt (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Because, these are different counties, different rules, different articles. The US has AM and FM, you all have AM, FM, DAB and who knows what else (I'm not British, so I don't really know). We have 10 channel AM, you have 9 channel AM. We have crappy HD Radio, you have DAB. It's all different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with it. If notability in the USA is related to the FCC license then by the same logic in the UK it should be related to an OFCOM license. That we have different platforms is irrelevant to the question of whether a regulator license gives notability. JMWt (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Dude, they are different in every way. OFCOM is not the FCC, the FCC is not CRTC, CRTC is not OFCOM. They're are different rules, regulations, the works. The NMEDIA rules were written out for US and Canadian stations. BCASTOUTCOMES are for US and Canadian AfDs. Sorry, but other countries didn't come into play when we wrote those.
Look, you started this mess, you swatted the hornets nest, you don't get to run off now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, you don't get to have rules that only apply to radio stations in the USA and nowhere else. And I am allowed to go to bed.JMWt (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The core issue, when it comes to radio stations, is that there has to be a single, objective standard by which all stations can be cleanly measured as to whether they pass or fail it — the inclusion standards cannot leave room for subjectivity about whether a station is notable enough. Before the consensus was codified as what it is, even no-brainer notables like WABC, KROQ and CFNY were regularly getting AFDed on the grounds that they were "only" local stations rather than national networks, and thus were automatically "non-notable" because they didn't broadcast beyond a single media market. Once upon a time, the criterion for radio stations was that they had to broadcast "regionally", but even that seemingly straightforward criterion bogged down in constant unresolvable debate about how big a station's broadcast range had to get before it qualified as "regional" at all — even big 100kW blowtorches in metropolitan cities like New York City and Los Angeles and Toronto and New Orleans were getting listed for AFD as "not regional enough", on the grounds that they weren't also using rebroadcaster networks to cover some undefined amount of extra area beyond the reach of the 100kW main signal itself. So we can't allow the notability of a topic to get conflated with whether any individual editor personally cares about the topic or not. Accordingly, consensus decided that as long as the topic could be properly sourced, a radio station did not have to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact of existing as a licensed radio station that has directly originated at least some of its own programming.
This was never meant, I hasten to point out, to constitute an exemption from having to reliably source the article — obviously, a criterion that loose would have opened us up to having to keep hoax articles about radio stations just because they claimed existence (and we have enough of a problem with that happening even with an RS requirement in place.) But conversely, any notability criterion stricter than "as long as it can be reliably sourced as existing" would open us up to a constant series of circular debates about how much stricter notability was enough — and almost no radio station, almost anywhere on earth, would actually be safely beyond the reach of having its notability questioned, if the inclusion standard left room for personal interpretation. Even "meets WP:GNG" isn't a totally objective standard, in reality, because even the seemingly basic matter of how much coverage it takes to satisfy GNG is frequently a subject of debate and disagreement too.
There are certain classes of topic where, for "public interest" and "as complete as possible a reference" reasons, we accept that all members of that class of topic are valid article topics as long as they can be properly sourced. For just one example out of many, any populated place (regardless of size) is a valid article topic under WP:GEOLAND as long as it can be properly sourced, and need make no additional claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists. Members of Parliament are not sorted into separate "notable" vs. "non-notable" piles on any criterion beyond the holding of a seat in Parliament; as soon as that basic claim of notability becomes true, they get an article regardless of how many pieces of legislation they have or haven't personally introduced, regardless of whether they have or haven't served in the cabinet, and on and so forth. Plant and animal species don't have to make any special claim of notability to clear the bar; as long as their name is recognized as a real thing in botanical or zoological literature, an article about them is allowed to be started on the basis of a single reliable source.
So there's no special distinction being made here for radio stations as a class of topic that's being treated differently than any other; there are in fact plenty of topics where as long as the topic can be properly sourced, it need make no special claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists. There are plenty of topics where the class of topic is notable and important enough that as long as at least one reliable source is present any member of that class is allowed to have an article, even if that article exists in an inadequate state right now, because the class of topic is important and notable enough that we rightly should be as complete as possible a reference for all sourceable members of that class of topic.
That said, there is a big problem with radio station articles often looking very much like they were written by an intern in the station's own marketing department, and there are far too many articles where the reliable sourcing part of the equation was ignored. But those are separate issues from the question of what counts as a valid basic claim of notability for a radio station — and anything stricter than "licensed radio station that originates at least some of its own programming" leaves the topic far too open to subjectivity and abuse. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fine if you are happy to accept 1 line articles because that is all the sourced material there is but inclusion standards have moved on and you need to have something that isn't going to lead to a bunch of permastubs. Spartaz Humbug! 22:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There's no objective notability standard that can be used to separate licensed radio stations into notable and non-notable classes on any criterion beyond the possession of a license — and any standard that allows subjectivity and personal opinion in the door opens up the possibility of even having to delete KROQ. If the choice is between a lot of short stubs and the entire AFD process turning into The Graveyard of All Radio Stations, then the stubs are the preferable option. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
First of all, Bearcat has (as usual) done a far better job of laying out the history and the problem than I could have, so...um...ditto. Second of all, the word "permastub" has been used three times in this discussion, as if it were an epithet. I remember arguments like this over redlinks in templates. Redlinks aren't a bad thing — they're a cue to a hole in coverage of a subject, which an interested editor might want to turn into a stub. A stub is not, by definition, a bad thing — it's an opportunity for an interested editor to turn it into a start class article, which is next month's C class, which is next year's GA. Stations change their call signs, or change their formats, or have their licenses transferred to new owners, and all of those are opportunities for an interested editor to open up the article and flesh it out a little more. Neutralhomer's area of interest and expertise is Virginia and area, and he noodles away at beefing up those. Bearcat's area of interest and expertise has long been Canada, and he's noodled away at beefing up those. For someone else, it might be Chicago, or country stations, or stations owned by iHeart, or whatever. Might an article be a stub for a while? Sure, but are we on a deadline here? Might an article be a stub for a really long while? Yeah, that's absolutely possible, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. Mlaffs (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly with the contributions by Bearcat and Mlaffs. The fact is that no local community radio station is likely to get a massive article written about it in a high-quality secondary source (although recently even one which had a reasonable write up in the Atlantic was deemed worthy of an AfD). Incidentally, I read that there are more than 1000 FCC licensed radio broadcast stations in the USA. The UK has less than 100, of which less than 40 have community licenses. JMWt (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Notable. Broadcast radio stations with a license from a national regulator are notable. The license is an independent reliable secondary source that contains significant coverage, and thus satisfies GNG. There is also nothing wrong with local media per se. In any event, the stations are notable for being significant and important so as to deserve attention (to paraphrase BIO). Having an objective standard for notability is better than reliance on subjective GNG alone. I also agree with the arguments of Neutralhomer regarding community consensus. The WKDE-FM article looks okay to me. James500 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Having looked closely at the AfD for Point FM, which seems to have been the catalyst for this discussion, I have concluded that the station in question plainly satisfied GNG. Claims made in the AfD that the sources contained only "mere mentions" were simply not accurate. In particular, there is no evidence (since it was not mentioned by anyone) that the closing admin, or the nominator, were aware of the book "Radio in Small Nations", from the University of Wales, which contains plainly significant coverage of the station namely a massive chunk of text that is nearly a full page on page 21. I therefore think the correct solution is immediate undeletion on grounds of 'new evidence'. I don't think, looking at the arguments in the AfD, that the close reflected consensus, and I don't think the AfD should have been closed when it was on grounds that there was WP:NOQUORUM for deletion. (The only !voter who argued for deletion apart from the nominator and closer advanced arguments that had no basis in policy or guideline. Two people advanced valid arguments against deletion. The nominator's argument failed to address all sources.) I think the outcome of that AfD was a fluke or outlier. I also strongly disapprove of the practice of overloading and overwhelming AfD by bringing large numbers of separate nominations at the same time, in particular because this typically has the result of ram roding at least a few wrong deletions through by sheer brute force. Nominating half of all these stations in separate nominations all at the same time should be out of the question. James500 (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I favour creating a full SNG that is no less inclusive than NMEDIA/BROADCAST/BCASTOUTCOMES. That would stop these arguments. We all know that the subjective nature of GNG causes problems. I would like someone to draw up a proposal for such an SNG as soon as possible. James500 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Not notable - I recently AFd'd half the UK community stations here and IMHO it does seem there's confusion as to what's what, IMHO having an OFCOM licence means nothing notability-wise and I expect the article to meet GNG (Even if they're primary/crappy sources, Mentions shouldn't count), From what I've witnessed in AFDs it seems NMEDIA/BROADCAST has always been applied to US radio stations but not UK ones and from the way the essay's worded it seems it was written by an American for US stations... All in all IMHO If an article doesn't mean GNG then it doesn't deserve an article (regardless of an OFCOM or FCC licence). –Davey2010Talk 02:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The point about where and when the essay was written makes absolutely no difference. NMEDIA may indeed have been written about radio stations in the USA, but it a) does not explicitly state that it is only to be used for those stations and b) the rationale behind it can obviously apply to all radio stations everywhere. Lots of WP norms originated from N America, that doesn't mean that N America can or should have special rules which apply to their cultural output and not to anyone else's. In fact, the norms established about N American radio stations can easily be applied everywhere else, given that OFCOM is the licensing regulator for the UK as the FCC is for the USA. That's simply about fairness and universal treatment of the same categories of thing.
  • The point about an FCC/OFCOM license has been well expressed by Bearcat above. Using what you've said here, all of Neutralhomer's pages would result in a AfD. That's ridiculous (as is Neutralhomer's rather personal insistence that I should argue rather than go to bed. Actually, I don't have to instantly reply to anything. I was looking for a discussion, which is why I started this, not hectoring). For the hard of understanding, I believe that all radio stations everywhere are notable if they have a permanent broadcast license from a regulator and have been noted in additional independent secondary source. Otherwise we get into ridiculous territory where a UK community radio station is only notable when Davey2010 says it is notable. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, if you think "all radio stations everywhere are notable if they have a permanent broadcast license from a regulator and have been noted in additional independent secondary source" (which a large amount of US/Canadian ones are), then what is the point of this RfC? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The point is that many British community radio stations have recently been subject to AfD, with some closed. I have opposed closure of these pages. After discussion with the admin who closed one, we agreed that it was necessary to establish more clearly the consensus on community radio notability, which is why I started this RFC. As is fairly obvious, there is a significant disagreement in what determines notability of these kinds of station. As I've been clear throughout, my opinion is what it is. I didn't need to be barracked by you. JMWt (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A subject is notable if it passes either WP:N or an SNG. At issue here looks to be not an SNG but an essay, which, if it yields results that frequently conflict with our guideline on notability (at WP:N), indeed should not be a promoted to guideline status. I think that in the large majority of cases a radio station, even community radio stations, are going to be notable, but I'm against the idea of exemptions to notability or guidelines (in the lowercase g sense) which purport a blanket exception that does not, in practice, always mean significant coverage in reliable sources. SNGs are roadmaps to apply notability to specific domains and provide useful means with which to evaluate what topics are probably notable. Appropriately, the fact of a broadcast license is a good indicator of notability, but it's not an absolute. It's possible, however, that there could be a compromise which makes explicit the already implicit fact that while radio stations are typically notable, they don't necessarily merit a stand-alone article. Having volunteered 30-50 hours a week at a community radio station for a few years, helped to build a couple, and having advocated for LPFM (and the like) for many years, I feel like I get what's at stake here and that I have a pretty good idea of the kind of coverage community radio stations get (i.e. they're usually notable). But the fact is, there are many LPFMs that are new and have not received enough coverage to merit an article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't really help though - how does one determine whether a particular community radio station is notable? How much coverage does it have to get? I repeat, none of the recent AfD discussions have been about stations that got no coverage but the disputes have been around whether an OFCOM license plus local media mentions are enough to show notability. JMWt (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
When it meets the rules set out in NMEDIA. If it is a licensed AM, FM, or LP station broadcasting a unique format and not a network (ie: KLOVE, Radio 74, etc.), it is notable under NMEDIA. Again, this is for US/Canadian stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. And it should also apply to all stations everywhere. There is no reason why NMEDIA should only apply to US/Canadian stations. JMWt (talk) 08:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Again, as I have said before, it only applies to US/Canadian stations because we didn't (and still don't) have any knowledge of radio stations in other countries. If you wish to create NMEDIAUK rules (I would base them on the NMEDIA rules), please be my guest. But as it currently stands NMEDIA was written by several Americans and a couple Canadians about US and Canadian radio stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Right, I'm not arguing about this with you any more. The same WP rules should apply to all radio stations everywhere, regardless of where the essay was written. If the FCC license gives notability in the USA then OFCOM license gives notability in the UK. Endof. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, nowhere does NMEDIA state it is only to be applied to N American media and nowhere does this WP state it is only about N American radio stations. Funnily enough, other countries exist. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Mentioned in NMEDIA (which I don't think you have read): "such as the FCC in the United States", the mention of "Travelers' Information Stations" (a largely US invention), "Translator stations" (also called rebroadcasters in Canada) (something that isused almost only the US and Canada. This one is TV related, but it goes to my point, "Subcarriers" also called "SubChannels". I don't know of any UK TV station that has a subchannel. "Carrier current stations", something I have only heard of within the US.
So, while it doesn't mention the US or Canada, all the terminology, information, and such is for US and Canadian stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Such as the FCC is a pretty clear example of a licensing authority. OFCOM is another example. Kindly stop assuming ignorance, I have actually read and digested NMEDIA, albeit whilst accepting that some of the terminology is not universally relevant. JMWt (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, a licensing authority in the US! We did not take OFCOM into consideration when writing NMEDIA. I don't know how many more ways I can say this. You are trying to lump British stations into a rule we never wrote them for. Do ya get it now...so should I repeat myself some more? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't care what you took into consideration, the thinking behind it is exactly the same. And wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the whole world, not just the USA. If you meant to write an essay that applied only to notability of N American radio stations, you should have said so. D'ya get it now? Extremely rude person. Any further personal attacks will be reported to appropriate fora. Do you have anything substantial to add to this discussion of community radio notability in the world rather than in your tiny part of the USA? JMWt (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Neutralhomer, while it is true that the guideline was written primarily by North American editors, it was never meant to apply exclusively to North American radio stations while excluding others. There may be an unintentional North American bias in the way it's actually written, but that would be a different debate from the one that's happening here — but it was never intended to exclude radio stations in the UK per se. For one thing, the FCC is cited in NMEDIA as an example ("such as") of the kind of national media regulator whose license grant confers the notability — nothing about it implies that the FCC is the only agency that counts (or the only agency that should count). And yes, broadcasting does work a bit differently in NA than it does elsewhere; in most but not all non-NA countries, radio operates on a much more national scale, with a lot more transmitters that are pure rebroadcasters of a single national service (thus failing the "actually originate at least a portion of their own programming" part of the equation, and qualifying only as redirects rather than standalone articles) and a lot fewer stations that are genuinely local (which may be where some of the NA-bias issues kick in here) — but JMWt is correct in this instance that NMEDIA was always meant to be applicable to all comparable situations and all comparable broadcast regulators, never just FCC/CRTC to the exclusion of anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Bearcat: Then we should add UK-based information regarding their 9 channel AM/FM platform, DAB, and the like. Also, information on UK's version of "Community Radio Stations". Which JMWt admitted are different from our LPFMs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Except that none of those issues make a whit of difference to the question of a radio station's notability. Notability for a radio station is determined by being able to reliably source that it exists as a licensed radio station that originates at least some of its own unique programming; the technical aspects of how it operates, such as DAB vs. HD or 9 vs. 10 channel AM, have no bearing on the notability issue at all. There's a place for encyclopedia content about those differences in the relevant articles, sure, but they don't need to be added to NMEDIA as considerations, because they're completely irrelevant to the notability, or lack thereof, of a radio station. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Once again, the United States does not have any community radio stations (we never have). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
right, noted. The rest of us will now continue to discuss the topic, giving your opinions and special pleading the credit it deserves. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong in principle for having different guidelines for different countries if relevant conditions in those countries are clearly different. That might be the case if the requirements of, and activities permitted by, an OFCOM license are significantly different to those of an FCC license. James500 (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
@James500: well that might be fair comment if there was a clear reason why an FCC license is notable over and above any other regulator's license. Nobody has offered any reason, they've just asserted that FCC licenses have always been a sign of notability and have resisted the idea that this should be applied in other jurisdictions. In the absence of any reasoning, it is reasonable to suggest that any policy which infers notability on regulated and licensed radio stations in the USA should also apply to regulated and licensed radio stations elsewhere. Would you not agree? JMWt (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
THANK YOU, James got it. There are different guidelines and even different platforms between the FCC and OFCOM. The reason the FCC and the CRTC are so much alike is because we share a border, so we have a like platform. OFCOM can do something completely different, because you all are way over there.
That said, British stations would have different rules over what is notable, what isn't. What should be a seperate article, what should be merged together. Should the stations be named by callsign or by branding? Do UK stations even have callsigns? (that one I don't know) Should there be market templates like US/Canadian stations? Do DAB stations require a seperate article or should they be apart of their parent station?
That's just what I could come up with in a short period. Then, someone would have to cover TV stations as well. Remember, NMEDIA is for radio and television. That's a whole 'nother ball game.
So, rules we have for US/Canadian stations wouldn't cover any of this. We name station pages by callsign. I don't see any callsigns on UK stations. We don't have DAB, we have HD Radio. Get the idea? Our rules wouldn't cover UK stations and UK rules wouldn't cover US stations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
These points are all fair, but do not touch on the actual discussion of whether worldwide regulated broadcast licenses infer notability. I agree that some of these other points could do with being defined, but the fact is that community radio stations in the UK with an FM license by the regulator (they have a unique band, do not broadcast on DAB etc) are being deleted. JMWt (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I understand that, but we didn't take "Community Radio Stations" into affect when we wrote and updated NMEDIA. We don't have those here. So, yeah, they are going to be deleted because they aren't covered in NMEDIA. Canada has them, but they are treated as translators/rebroadcasters in most cases and redirected to the main station. In rare cases, the page is sometimes given it's own page (with sources of course).
We can have seperate rules. We can rename NMEDIA to NMEDIAUSCA and create NMEDIAUK. The latter would have to be created by knowledgeable Brits. We can have NMEDIAAUS for Australian stations too (unless they don't differ that greatly from the UK). That way, we have rules that govern both sets of pages and there isn't any overlap that causes stations to be deleted. Stations that weren't accounted for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Participants might find the article Community radio in the United Kingdom aids their understanding. OFCOM has a different license for commercial radio. James500 (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
James500: It sounds like a more powerful version of our LPFM, but with vastly different rules. If I understood it correctly, Community Radio Stations in the UK can run ads. In the US, LPFMs have underwriters, which may be a community organization, a business or even a person. While I didn't see the wattage of the stations (or any UK station for that matter), LPFMs are set at anywhere between 1 and 100 watts. Community Radio Stations in the UK sound like they have alot more than 100 watts. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I think you may misunderstand what "community radio stations" actually means. A community radio station is not a "translator or rebroadcaster"; it's a station that actually originates its own community-oriented local programming, sort of like a college radio station but for the fact that it's owned by a non-profit organization out in the wider community rather than a university or college. (And college radio stations aren't excluded by this guideline, either; NMEDIA actually explicitly states that college radio stations are judged by the same inclusion standards as any other radio station, and are not automatically deemed non-notable just because the word "college" is involved.) And if community radio isn't a thing that you have in the United States, then why is Category:Community radio stations in the United States as heavily populated as it is? Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"Community Radio Station" is not a recognized category by the FCC. There are FM, AM, HD, LPFM, TX, and CC station, but nothing with "community" in the name. The closest thing we have are LPFMs. There might be a Community radio stations in the United States category, but that does not mean they are "Community Radio Stations" by JMWt's definition. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
They don't have to be a distinct licensing category to be a thing that exists. "Rock music radio station" and "country music radio station" aren't distinct FCC licensing categories either, but that doesn't mean they don't exist as formats. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
No, that's wrong, community radio stations in the UK have to be non-commerical and so are not ad funded. In fact they are only allowed to operate where the regulator determines that they would not conflict with the output of a commercial station. The wattage is not a factor, some community radio stations are a lot bigger than others. And in order to get a license, any community radio station has to go through an extensive review process by OFCOM to show community interest and benefit, financial stability etc. Many organisations apply but only around 40 have been allocated this kind of license. JMWt (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
That adds more differences to the pile. LPFMs are allowed to be in major metropolitan areas. One just launched across the river from DC. One is starting up soon in NYC. One launched last month in Southside Chicago. These places, as you know, have TONS of full-power commercial radio stations. LPFMs are neither commercial nor non-commercial. Even with the non-ads of "Community Radio Stations", that is still different from LPFMs because they have underwriters. Those can sound like a commercial, but can't be a commercial. There is a whole slew of rules governing that. To get an LPFM, a group just has to prove that they are registered as an independent group with the state, have a community-oriented plan, and can remain community-oriented when broadcasting. Some stations play regular music like you'd hear on a commercial station, some play unsigned, little-known, or local artists.
So, even more-so, "Community Radio Stations" in the UK and LPFMs here in the US are waaay different. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, let's agree that they're different. Can we now talk about why the FCC licensing LPFMs should be considered to infer notability whereas OFCOM licensing Community Radio stations does not. That's the crux of the discussion I want to have. JMWt (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, for one, LPFMs are covered under NMEDIA. More and more, LPFMs are religious in format and are redirected to their parent network (ie: EWTN, Radio 74, etc.). In the cases they aren't, an article is created with sources available. LPFMs get more local news coverage than the bigger commercial stations for some reason, so this makes local sources relatively easy to find. WBCM-LP is a good example of this. WXTH-LP would be an example of an LPFM stub, in an area where local sources are not easy to find. You take what you can get.
There difference between WXTH-LP and say The Eye (radio station) (a UK Community Radio Station) is there is a source from the FCC showing the station is licensed and broadcasting. Where the station broadcasts from, what the station's coverage area is, wattage, tower height, any new applications filed, the works. A wealth of information. The Eye (radio station) has no link from OFCOM, no local sources like WBCM-LP does, only two links sourcing a concert the station held in 2006.
In short, the difference of notablity is sources. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
all that information is available for licensed community radio stations in the UK. I can agree with you that this individual page needs improvement, but notability is not just about the current sources on the page. I could improve the page with all of those technical details and some will still argue it is not notable as per WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Actually The Eye does have coverage on OFCOM's website: [1] [2] [3], in particular. It seems to have recently "honoured" (says OFCOM) which may be the "Community Champion 2015" award from Community Media Association [4]. James500 (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
All of that should be added to the page. Side note, the FCC doesn't mention news regarding any of the stations they govern over. I don't think the CRTC does either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, right now The Eye (radio station) is mostly original research with two sources about a one-and-done concert almost 10 years ago. The page, as it stands, currently doesn't meet WP:N. So, yes, current sources is what makes a page notable. In turn, it meets GNG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Wrong: WP:ARTN. If the sources exist, it is notable - whatever the current status of the page. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You obviously looked for something to contradict me without actually reading it. "If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content can make the subject notable." If the subject has not be coverted outside of Wikipedia. That means, if the station is covered, as I just said above, it will meet the notability criteria.
Please read these rules before posting them. You might actually learn something. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I refer the honorable member to the comments made by James500 some moments ago. Clearly sources exist which are not currently on that page, which might infer notability (if one took technical details available from OFCOM as evidence of notability). It is clearly not correct to state that "current sources is what makes a page notable". As the page stands it might well not meet acceptable standards, but notability is related to whether sources exist. And with reference to this debate, the crux is whether OFCOM technical details give notability anyway JMWt (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know why close was requested so soon, but anyway I'll chime in with WP:TWOPRONGS, an essay I've written on this topic. The old talk page discussion there is good reading too. We need significant independent sources in order to write an actual encyclopedia article on a topic. Perma-stubs on topics that don't have sources cited that satisfy GNG serve little purpose, and are better covered in merged summary/list articles. Gigs (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow the GNG and stop concocting ludicrous exemptions for more perma stubs on your favorite bauble. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • GNG is so vague and subjective that it is impossible to say with authority whether or not any topic satisfies it. It is consequently manna for deletionist wikilawyers, because no matter how much coverage there is, they can trollishly argue that it is not enough. Consequently we need objective 'bright line' criteria those people can't argue with. The problem is not that these stations lack coverage, as they have plenty of coverage. The problem is that deletionists are obviously going to wikilawyer about the meaning of GNG, unless we make that impossible for them. This kind of disruptive behaviour is a systemic project wide problem. James500 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Request for Close

The original poster, JMWt, stated above that "(he) believe(s) that all radio stations everywhere are notable if they have a permanent broadcast license from a regulator and have been noted in additional independent secondary source." This is in direct contrast with his original post, which asks the "consensus on when/if community radio stations are notable". This is a massive contradiction, one that can not be overlooked.

Between that massive contradiction and the above back and forth where JMWt clearly does not understand that NMEDIA was written, even with vague terminology, for US and Canadian radio stations. That nowhere does it mention any terms used in British radio, Australian radio or any other country. It's clear this isn't going anywhere. It is also clear that JMWt is wasting this projects time. Time which could be spent on updating articles. Something I suggested to JMWt and others, which was promptly ignored.

As such, I ask that this RfC be closed and any further discussion be made on JMWt's talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I asked for discussion and then gave my view. This discussion has been sidelined by your special pleading about radio stations in the USA and insistence that rules which apply to them should not apply to anyone else in the world. JMWt (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow. You asked "when...a community radio station [is] notable", but later said you "believe that all radio stations everywhere are notable". People who believe something don't ask for comments to cement that belief. You either believe radio stations are notable or you don't. There-in lies the massive contradiction.
I said the NMEDIA rules were created for US and Canadian stations as we didn't have any information regarding them. I offered for you to create NMEDIAUK with UK-based rules in line with NMEDIA. You're British, you will know more about them than anyone. I also said that the US doesn't have "community radio stations", but you keep saying we do. You also keep lumping radio stations from the US, UK, and other countries together.
All this and me having to repeat myself because you obviously don't get it, shows to me that you aren't here to edit constructively, to engage in conversation or debate. You'd rather insult those who have different views from yours, repeat yourself because of WP:NOTGETTINGIT, and not really get anywhere. This should go back to your talk page and should be closed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I read very carefully the WP:RFC which clearly states that the discussion should be started with "a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue." I am known for having strong opinions on this topic, so I was trying very hard to invite discussion with a neutral question. As I've said many times and you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT, the clear point is that all the radio stations in the world should be subject to the same standards of notability. As there is only one WP:NMEDIA it is entirely consistent to apply it to all radio stations in the world, whether or not community radio stations exist in the USA. JMWt (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, you aren't getting it. As I have said before (and again above), US rules do not cover UK stations. UK rules don't cover US stations. Until the UK drops DAB, moves to 10 channel AM, adopts HD Radio, begins using translators, and pretty much everything else we do, the rules will need to be different for the US/Canada and for the UK. You aren't getting this because you think just because it's on the radio it's the same...it isn't. Your less than a year here is showing and showing bad. Hence the request to close. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Your accusations are now being reported. It is very clear from the start what I'm talking about, your repeated efforts to bring it back to the USA are not welcome. JMWt (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
They hell are you talking about? Bring what back to the US? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
NMEDIA is not, and never was meant to be, limited to US and Canadian radio stations to the exclusion of stations anywhere else — and technical differences like DAB vs. HD, 9 vs. 10 channel AM, etc., have no bearing on the question of a radio station's basic notability. So they're not relevant to this discussion, because they don't prove that there is or needs to be a UK vs. US difference in what would make a radio station eligible to have an article at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Stating one's opinion and asking for the community to build consensus are not "a massive contradiction, one that can not be overlooked." They are both part of the RFC process. So it's not at all clear why you request a close. If your point is that the RFC has generated excessive discussion, then look at how much of that discussion is yours. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for the community to build consensus, because consensus has already been built. Another thing that JMWt is unable to understand. You shouldn't need to ask for consensus on something you believe is true. JMWt believes all radio station articles to be notable, but asks for "consensus on when/if community radio stations are notable". So, he either believes they are notable or they aren't. This is the contradiction that can't be overlooked.
As for my posts, I, along with others, have been trying repeatedly to get JMWt to understand some basic facts and I have had to repeat myself ad naseum. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Nope, actually nobody else is making the claim that NA radio stations have notability from WP:NMEDIA that does not apply to anyone else. See Bearcat's contribution above.
And the suggestion that we shouldn't discuss this issue (which is clearly contentious) because there is already consensus is ridiculous, given users above have given equal and opposite thoughts on the subject. JMWt (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
So, you want consensus on something that has consensus, but you refuse to recognize that consensus? Is that what you're telling me? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
How can there be a current consensus when people obviously believe different things? What do you actually think the consensus is? JMWt (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
This is the current consensus as it stands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem here being that some AFD decisions are running counter to that consensus, on different interpretations of the criteria than the ones that went into that consensus. JMWt isn't causing a problem here, he's trying to solve an issue caused by other people — so I don't get why you're snarking at him about this. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The consensus is, as you said, biased toward US and Canadian stations. As I have said repeatedly before, all radio stations should not be lumped together. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
There might be an unintentional NA-bias in the way in which NMEDIA expresses the consensus — but the consensus itself is not, never has been, and never was meant to be, NA-exclusive. It has always been meant to cover all radio stations in all countries, not just ones in the US and Canada alone. And you have yet to show any evidence that we actually need to create a separate NMEDIAUK for UK radio stations; every single US-UK difference you've alluded to so far has been a purely technical issue (DAB vs. HD, etc.) that has no bearing on a radio station's notability at all.
Nothing about NMEDIA has anything to do with what digital radio specification a country uses; nothing about NMEDIA has anything to do with whether the country uses 9-channel or 10-channel AM; nothing about NMEDIA has anything to do with what class of license a radio station is or isn't operating under. A radio station is notable if it can be reliably sourced as (a) possessing a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority, and (b) originating at least part of its own programming schedule in its own studios. None of the purely technical differences between the UK and US broadcasting systems impact either of those conditions at all, so they have nothing to do with the notability question. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not see some station as being notable when its national authority grants it a license to broadcast, but for a limited period, and/or at low power, and it gets no significant independent coverage in reliable sources because no one much noticed that it was there. It would be like a failed local business or someone's hobby, neither of which would generally be found to be notable. Edison (talk) 22:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Nobody said anything about a limited period; even in North America, there have been plenty of temporary radio stations which have gotten brief licenses to broadcast solely for the duration of a community event or festival. Nobody has ever said that kind of station would get a permanent standalone article, and while I have to acknowledge that the possibility exists that one or two articles over the years have gotten created because somebody mistakenly conflated such a temporary license with a real, permanent station, such stations don't generally have permanent standalone articles. The power that a station is licensed to broadcast under, however, is not a consideration: permanent LPFMs can and do get coverage, and Wikipedia policy explicitly disallows us from placing arbitrary cutoffs (e.g. a specific minimum wattage on a radio station, a specific minimum mileage on a road or highway, a specific minimum number of students for a school, etc.) into inclusion standards. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
What policy "explicitly disallows" having a minimum quantity in a notability guideline? And you have been around long enough to know that if we say "licensed stations which originate a portion of their programming" are presumed notable without excluding a 1 watt station that had a license to broadcast for 28 days, then some fan will argue inherent notability for such an entity, such as the UKRestricted Service Licence stations. A one watt transmitter would be hard pressed to reach any appreciable audience, hardly more than I could reach by talking into a bullhorn from the back porch of my home or a carrier current station in my dorm. On the other hand the UK Community Radio Stations which have articles look like it should be possible to find evidence of notability, since some have been on the air for years with paid staff and volunteer show hosts, with live music and sports as well as recordings. They are providing information and entertainment to some community (one claims 14,000 listeners, but who audits such claims?). Edison (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Re "Who audits such claims?": RAJAR (Radio Joint Audience Research) compiles audience figures. Audience figures are a strong indicator of notability. James500 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
sadly, @James500:, RAJAR do not always count the audience of British community radio stations, because it is primarily a service to commercial radio stations. Sometimes community radio stations are included, but often they are not. JMWt (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thanks for these thoughts. I'd say that short-term licenses are not notable and this can be inferred from WP:BCAST (second bullet point) where there is mention of "established broadcast history". Once again, though, this is not a "policy", so to be absolutely correct, there is no policy which makes a comment on that point. As to the signal strength, my view is that there is a level of community impact that must be proven to receive an OFCOM license, and that something which is the equivalent of a man with a bullhorn would not get a broadcast license. On your point about notability for UK Community Radio stations, as we've been saying, there are notes in secondary sources, but these have been discarded in AfD discussions because they are too short and/or only in local media.
As far as I can see, trying to extract "minimum quantities" or "wattage" strength of transmitters is too hard to do (or agree to) so the only fall-back option available is to look first for a broadcast license, then to look for secondary sources to show it is not a fake. Even taking on board your points about time-limited and ham radio licenses (which are valid but not in dispute) would not resolve the issue where permanent licensed British community radio stations have been deleted from wikipedia. And, fwiw, the radio stations which have been removed under the recent cull had much greater than a 1 w transmitter. Point fm, for example - which was recently deleted - has a 25 w transmitter. I'd be extremely surprised if there was a licensed OFCOM radio station with a lower power transmitter. JMWt (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Can you give some more detail about how we'd go about doing that (what kind of publications would you need to see about the stations?) - and what you think should happen to the WP pages that have not been featured in the media? Could you respond below so we can try to understand more about the consensus on this? Thanks. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe Doug Weller's comments below expresses my position better than I could. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 09:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, I'll add you to the rough list of where the participants stand below. JMWt (talk) 09:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Possible outcomes

There are a small number of possible outcomes here:

  • WP:NMEDIA and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES were always intended to apply to all stations everywhere, and therefore as Bearcat has outlined above, a permanent licensed broadcast radio station everywhere in the world is notable if there is also a secondary source noting its existence.
  • WP:NMEDIA and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES only apply to NA radio stations, which would be systematic bias if other radio stations elsewhere in the world were not also considered on the same basic premises. So either WP:NMEDIA and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES need to be rewritten to include the rest of the world, or the rest of the world needs their own versions - which would clearly include notability as per the broadcast license as a basic.
  • Neither WP:NMEDIA and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES can be used in AfD discussions because they do not reflect consensus and are not policy, and therefore we need to determine what actually does reflect consensus on radio station notability around the world. Because at the moment radio station pages are being deleted even with broadcast licenses and notes of existence in secondary sources. But if one is a small station, one is never going to get national mass circulation newspaper coverage to clearly satisfy WP:GNG.. and therefore we might as well wave goodbye to every small radio station that currently has a wikipedia page.

What other possible outcomes are there? JMWt (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This sounds "Grant inherent notability for my stations or your stations have to be deleted." A consensus emerged from many AFDs over the years that licensed broadcast stations which originate a portion of their own programming (added to avoid granting repeater stations notability)have a presumption of notability, meaning not that they are automatically and inherently notable, but rather that experience shows that a little digging one can usually find multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Things which books, regional newspapers as well as specialized journals of broadcasting cover include the launch of operation, changes of format (WLS goes from country barndance programming to rock and roll to talk), changes of ownership (media conglomerates buy stations from families of founders), and awards won, or special programming which gains or loses listening audience (WGN covers the Scopes Monkey Trial in the 1920's), as well as ratings results in major markets. I object to efforts to say that if North American licensed stations, which go through laborious efforts to get and keep licences, and which get independent coverage by media, and are an important voice in their coverage areas for an extended period are notable, then so are some other countries' "community radio stations," which might have a very easy time of getting a license, and which might be granted a limited time license, and might get little audience and little independent coverage. Having a government licence is a poor indicant of notability. ( I had a Citizens Band radio license issued by the Federal Communications Commission, and it or ham licenses convey not a shred of notability). Wikipedia is not a directory of every entity which got some sort of government license. Low power FM licenses in the US are not much of an indication of notability, even if the broadcasters originate some local programming. We generally look for multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage for low power FM, for pirate broadcasters, just as for unlicensed college dorm carrier current stations, and for internet-only stations. Edison (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
As above: nobody said anything about "limited-time licenses"; such things have existed in Canada and the United States too, without conferring articles. And NMEDIA never granted automatic notability to ham operators, either; it specifically restricts itself to conventional broadcasters on the AM and FM bands. But when it comes to permanent broadcasting licenses, Ofcom certainly does not have lower standards than the FCC or CRTC does; given the remarkably small number of such stations that actually exist, their standards if anything are tighter.
And such stations do not fail to be the subject of as much media coverage as local radio stations get in Canada and the United States, either. None of the UK community radio stations that have been deleted at AFD recently were entirely unsourceable — it's not that they failed to meet equivalent standards to those by which a North American radio station would have been judged, but that they were being held to heightened standards of a type that almost no radio station anywhere on the entire planet could ever have actually met.
No local radio station, except maybe a very select few with especially long "dawn of rock 'n roll" type histories, ever actually has its coverage bubble all the way up to the national media, frex — for radio stations, local media is virtually always where you have to source them, and extralocal media is virtually always impossible. But the presumption in those discussions was that UK radio stations have to be held to a different standard than radio stations in other countries do.
Nobody here is arguing that the UK should get a special UK-specific standard because its stations can't meet NMEDIA; the actual argument was that even though its stations can and do meet NMEDIA right on its face, NMEDIA wasn't enough for some unspecified reason completely unique to the UK. The effect was and is to undermine NMEDIA's standards for the notability of radio stations, in a way that would essentially wipe out 95 to 99 per cent of all articles about all radio stations worldwide if it were actually carried back as the new NMEDIA standard. Nobody was arguing that the UK stations should be held to a lower standard than North American ones are; several people were arguing, however, that they should be held to inflated standards, so hyperinflated in fact that if that same standard were carried back over The Pond again, nearly all of our articles about North American radio stations would disappear too. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
agree that limited time period and ham radio stations are not under discussion as being notable. None of the recent AfD been either, so that's a red herring. JMWt (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In view of comments above, particularly those of Bearcat, I think the correct outcome here is for the OFCOM licensed 'community radio stations' that have been deleted at AfD to be undeleted via DRV. James500 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Spartaz, Ravenswing, and Davey2010: and anyone else: do you find @Bearcat:'s extended argument above convincing? If not, can you explain a) why not and b) how you think we should (specifically) assess radio station notability. What actually would you need to see to be convinced that a community radio station was notable? Why is there a difference between NA and British radio stations that Bearcat has identified? JMWt (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
JMWt - So for the village idiot here are we saying if a community radio station has an OFCOM licence and perhaps one source then it's deemed completely notable and thus would meet NMEDIA/BROADCAST? (Sorry I've only had 3 hours sleep so not entirely with it all ). –Davey2010Talk 12:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That's fine, we can wait until you've had time to recover and digest what has been written above :) JMWt (talk) 12:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Which would take the best part of a year anyway . –Davey2010Talk 12:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
seriously, are you going to be able to comment? I can't see how we can possibly reach consensus until we understand the different ways people involved are perceiving the issue. JMWt (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well looking at the possible outcomes above I'd say 1 is the only workable one here (and perhaps rewording NMEDIA so that either the UK's included or the world as a whole is included), Problem is we can't really have "An American/Canadian guide" and "A British guide" as we'll end up with "An idian guide" or "A Turkish Guide" too so everything needs to be combined in to one ... and 3 would be hopeless as newbies will nominate and no doubt point to NMEDIA and would possibly have no idea of this discussion, Also I have no idea on transmitters so again I can't see that working, –Davey2010Talk 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Understanding various positions to reach consensus

  • OK it sounds like User:Neutralhomer has better things to be doing than this discussion. So does anyone else agree that WP:NMEDIA should only apply to NA radio stations and that the same, or similar, notability standards (ie relating to licensing) should not apply universally to regulatory systems from other countries? Anyone like to explain some more about this view?
  • Does anyone believe that wholesale merging of small radio stations into lists would be a desirable outcome? If so, would you see any small stations having a WP page, and if yes, under what circumstances? JMWt (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Edison: and @Bearcat: have been talking about the signal strength as a possible way to assess notability of a radio station. Does anyone think this is a good/workable idea? FYI, WKEY_(AM) says that station has a 16W transmitter, and I happen to know that the British community radio station Point FM (page now deleted) has a 25W transmitter. So is there some transmitter size below which we can say the station is not notable? If yes, is there a reason why a NA radio station with a smaller transmitter is notable but a UK community radio with a bigger transmitter isn't? Personally, I can't see how we could make this a workable idea to assess notability. JMWt (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ERP or transmitter output power? And consider population density, comparing, for example, the total North American area that would have no service from terrestrial high-powered FM stations with the total UK area in a like kike situation.— Neonorange (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
No, WKEY is a 1,000 watt, day-and-night, AM station. It's FM translator, W278BF, is the one that broadcasts at only 16 watts. But, that 16 watts is broadcast from a tower on a mountain, at 310.6 meters or 1,019 feet. So that 16 watts goes pretty far.
Please, stop now, and learn the information. You are still trying to see American and Canadian radio from a British perspective and it isn't going to work. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
hmm... I'd gotten the impression multiple views were in play—am I mistaken? — Neonorange (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Neonorange: I was addressing JMWt, not you. My apologizes if it appeared that I was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: as the section says, the point here is to understand different positions. I take it from what you say here that you think using a technical output criteria would not be possible for US radio station notability? @Neonorange: OK, so perhaps technical output is not workable but audience population or broadcast footprint would be? Could that be developed as a criteria? JMWt (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Power/Wattage, Audience Population and Broadcast Footprint are all horrible ideas. Take WXXR-LP for example, a lowly 100 watt LPFM, but serves 60,785 people (according to the 2010 Census) in Terre Haute, Indiana. Now take KYUS-FM, massive 100,000 watt signal on an almost 1,000 foot tower. Serves about 15,000 people. Finally, take WHCR-FM, a piddly 8 watt station with a highly directionalized signal, serves 1,636,268 people on the island of Manhattan. Even more in the Bronx and Brooklyn.
My point here is, Power/Wattage, Audience Population and Broadcast Footprint are different with each station. To put those kinds of rules up would take every page to a grinding halt and create a massive arguement over each and every one of them.
So far, and this is per NMEDIA, the best way we have found is if the station has been given a License to Cover by the FCC and it carries unique programming generated from the station itself, not a full 24/7 simulcasts (ie: K-Love, Air1, CSN, etc.). Then, and only then, is a page considered notable. After that, we do our best to update them all with sources and the like and keep them up-to-date. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that. No radio station page should be deleted based on area, population or power. And I also strongly believe that the criteria suggested here should apply to all radio stations everywhere. JMWt (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
No, GNG applies. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Internet radio stations aren't granted an automatic presumption of notability, under the auspices of NMEDIA, just because they exist — but there have been and are internet radio stations that pass WP:GNG. That's certainly not true of all or even most of them, but it's not "never" true either. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: - can you spell this out with specifics on what you think a radio station needs to have as a source to be notable? Are you talking about extended articles in national newspapers? Or mentions in local newspapers? Or technical details offered by the regulator? All of these positions have been offered by different users above. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Something more than local sources (as with, say, restaurants) and certainly not technical details from the regulator. It's hard to way what would be acceptable under GNG other than ruling those 2 out, that's what AfD is for. Doug Weller (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. As far as I read this page, you are in a minority position (which would wipe out almost all radio station pages on wikipedia) and are opposed by @Neutralhomer, Bearcat, Mlaffs, and James500: and me. That said, you've been a bit more explicit than other editors who may hold the same position. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Just as a rough count, I think the following editors generally agree with @Doug Weller: on what he has said about GNG notability: @Ravenswing, Spartaz, and Gigs: also @Torritorri: with a couple of others who seem less sure. Please everyone correct me here if this misrepresent you. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
With exceedingly rare exceptions, non-local coverage is a thing that almost no radio station in any country ever gets — so if that were the standard, 99.999 per cent of all North American radio stations would have to be deleted too. It's an unattainable condition that would literally wipe out any possibility of very nearly any radio station on earth ever being notable enough for Wikipedia.
GNG does not, for the record, deprecate local sourcing as inherently unacceptable or inadequate — for some classes of topic, such as restaurants and locally-owned non-chain retail stores, graduating to non-localized coverage is an extra condition that we apply above GNG, on the grounds that those classes of thing are not automatically topics of broader public interest beyond their local area — and thus, for a thing in that class to be eligible for a Wikipedia article, it needs to be explicitly shown that a particular member of that class has attained greater notability than the norm. But for many other classes of topic, local sourcing is not deprecated, and "more notable than the norm for their class of topic" is not a condition they have to meet.
Members of Parliament (UK/Canada/Australia) or Congress (US), for example, do not have to graduate to national coverage before they're eligible for articles, nor does any special evidence need to be shown that they've somehow attained some special notability distinction above and beyond other MPs or Congresspeople — literally the moment they've been declared elected, they get to have an article, which must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which confirms that fact on its face, and that source is allowed to be a local media outlet in their own hometown. Mayors of cities large enough to satisfy our inclusion criteria for mayors do not have to get large amounts of national coverage to qualify for articles; they are allowed to rest on the local sources that are likely to be covering them most regularly. People who win notable awards (a writer who wins the Giller or the Pulitzer or the Booker, a cinematographer who wins an Oscar or a BAFTA, etc.) do get to have articles, which must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which confirms that they've won the award. We do not quibble over whether some North American area codes are more or less notable than others; the class of topic is important and encyclopedic enough that we rightly should be a complete reference for all of them regardless of whether some are sourced better than others are. State or provincial or federal highways do not have to be shown as meeting GNG before they're eligible for articles; the class of topic is important and notable enough that a poorly sourced article is flagged for maintenance, but not eligible for outright deletion, because we do want and expect and need to be a complete reference for all of them. And on, and so forth.
There are certain classes of topic where the need to be as complete as possible a reference for all verifiable members of that class of topic trumps any debate about the individual notability of any particular article within that class at any particular time. Some national legislators still have extremely poor articles which have never actually been substanced or sourced much beyond "So-and-so was an elected member of Country's National Legislative House" — but those articles are not deletable on that basis, and are eligible only to be flagged for further improvement, because the class of topic is important and notable enough that the need to be a complete reference for all of its members overrides the shortcomings of any individual article within the class. And that's not constituting an exemption from Wikipedia's sourcing requirements, because an inadequately sourced article in that class rightly should still be flagged for {{refimprove}} — but some classes of topic are important and notable enough as a class that an inadequate member of that class still gets to stick around pending improvement, rather than being rushed into the trash can too quickly.
And there is an important public service component in ensuring that all readers have access to as much information about them as possible — not least because of the fact that media outlets are the majority of the reliable source references that Wikipedia cites for its content, so readers do need access to reliable information about those sources as topics in their own right.
Notability is not solely a characteristic of an individual article; it's also a characteristic of classes of topic. Some classes of topic are not notable in principle, and thus some evidence has to be shown that an individual member of that class is more notable than the norm before it becomes eligible for an article — but some other classes of topic are notable and important enough in aggregate that we rightly and correctly do try to be as complete as possible a reference for all verifiable members of that class. In that latter case, even an inadequately sourced article within that class is eligible only for the maintenance queue and may be deleted only if it turns out to be an outright hoax (or otherwise unverifiable). And radio stations are a class of topic that rightly and correctly belongs within the latter camp and not the former. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Your point about classes of topics is easily addressed by merging topics that have not received significant coverage into appropriate lists or other articles. There are good reasons to generally avoid exceptions to GNG -- without enough reliable secondary sources to cite, we end up with a directory of permastubs. In fact, this is exactly what has happened in regard to area codes, high schools, obscure politicians, and other topics where the OUTCOMES essay or other guidelines have superseded GNG. Technical regulatory information or other such criteria are not enough to provide encyclopedic coverage in separate articles. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 06:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem remains that the question of whether any given station qualifies for a standalone article, or mere inclusion in a list, cannot be left up to personal differences of opinion about whether that station has claimed or sourced enough notability or not. The standard has to be strictly objective, leaving exactly zero room for any doubt or debate about whether it's been met or not. Before the standard for politicians was formally codified in WP:NPOL, we used to see even well-sourced articles about Canadian MPs — and I mean even some of the "major" cabinet ministers, not just "obscure" backbenchers — listed for AFD on the grounds that the person's sphere of notability didn't extend beyond Canada into worldwide fame and fortune. That's obviously not acceptable, but it was one of the reasons why NPOL was created — to properly establish that serving in the House of Commons is accepted as a mark of notability in its own right, so that even if an individual MP's article remains inadequate that constitutes a maintenance issue and is not grounds for deletion.
As I've already pointed out in this discussion, there is no objective and neutral standard, by which radio stations can be sorted into notable vs. non-notable piles, that falls anywhere between NMEDIA as currently written and a heightened standard of mega-GNG so strict that almost no radio station in existence could ever actually pass it. A specific minimum ERP would be an arbitrary cutoff. A specific licensing category would be an arbitrary cutoff. A specific minimum audience size would be an arbitrary cutoff — not to mention being entirely unquantifiable in many cases, because even in North America radio ratings are only compiled for major metropolitan markets in which a lot of radio stations are in competition with each other, meaning that many stations in smaller markets could never show any source for their audience statistics at all. A vague "impact in the community" criterion leaves too much room for subjective interpretation of how much impact is enough impact, and even regular GNG leaves room for subjective interpretation of how much GNG is enough GNG — any standard that leaves radio stations vulnerable to debate about whether they've got enough of that standard to pass the inclusion test is not an option, and any standard that would open up "delete because I don't personally give a shit about this" as a possible deletion argument is a total non-starter. The inclusion standard has to be one where the answer to "is this criterion satisfied" is either a purely objective yes or a purely objective no, with no room for subjective debate about it.
I'm not saying that all or even most of our articles about radio stations are adequate in their existing form — we clearly do have many articles that remain in need of significant substance and sourcing improvements. And again, nobody has ever said that NMEDIA confers an exemption from having to reliably source the content — it does not. But when it comes to the basic minimum notability claim that a radio station has to make to be eligible for an article, the only possible standards are "verifiable as (a) existing as a licensed radio station, which (b) originates some of its own independent programming" or "standard of sourcing so heightened that very nearly no radio station could ever actually meet it". There's no possible criterion anywhere in between those two positions. An inadequately sourced and inadequately substanced article about a radio station should be flagged for {{refimprove}}, absolutely — but the basic claim of notability that a radio station has to meet and source in order to be eligible for an article already is exactly where it should correctly be: "verifiable as (a) existing as a licensed radio station, which (b) originates some of its own independent programming". Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the description of community radio I read in the article Doug linked to appears to be too skewed towards a current/recent perspective. Here in Alaska, a number of community radio stations originated as commercial stations, or as pirate stations which were eventually licensed, or on the AM band. Historically speaking, that was because the FM band below 96 MHz was reserved for military use until about the mid 1980s; older non-commercial stations, such as KUAC and KSKA, began on the commercial side of the FM dial and eventually moved. Back then, if you weren't a state-sponsored "educational broadcaster", there were few alternatives beyond competing as a commercial broadcaster. The first community radio station I was pseudo-involved with was KABN, which launched in 1979 as both a commercial station and an AM station. Other than the fact that people were earning a living from working there, I see little difference between KABN and today's LPFM stations. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS:So would you say all of those are notable enough to have WP pages? How should we determine radio station notability? JMWt (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I don't understand all the ins and outs of this radio station notability debate but I am really wondering why it was suggested above "As such, I ask that this RfC be closed and any further discussion be made on JMWt's talk page."?? This RfC was only opened a couple of days ago and has had many comments from a variety of people. Give other editors some time to also get involved before prematurely and unnecessarily calling for a close of the RfC? How long is an RfC normally meant to run for? Several weeks, I would have thought? If anyone thinks it's a waste of time to have it, then just stay away from the page for a week, come back in a week's time and see what's been discussed in the meantime. I think that would be better than trying to force a fast closure. This is just my two cents worth. And please everyone try to remain friendly, no personal attacks whatsoever, we're trying to be a nice, productive community of volunteers here. EvMsmile (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It appears that this RFC has been dominated by two editors going back and forth as if the rest of us hardly matter. Twice, I experienced edit conflicts just trying to post a rather short comment, which is far from what I may have to say on this matter. Could that have anything to do with the lack of participation? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
On the bright side, this is the most activity this lonely little project talk page has seen in a few years now. So there's that. Mlaffs (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Mlaffs: Right you are, Brian. :) Now if we could just get the same level of activity on the radio station pages, maybe we could get them updated and out of "StubLand". :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Existing guidelines on use of local sources

We already have guidelines for organisations and companies, and projects can't overrule them. The relevant bit for this RfC is WP:AUD. This says "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local (as in - with a circulation limited to a single city or metropolitan area) media, or media of limited interest and circulation (such as trade journals), is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." Doug Weller (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: thanks for doing that. So what do you think of @Bearcat:'s arguments just above? It is clearly not the case that absolutely everything needs to be cited extensively in those kinds of sources to be notable, is it? Someone mentioned about restaurants above - but isn't it the case that media is a different kind of thing to a food outlet? For example: I live in a small town, but within a short distance we have probably 100 or more restaurants and fast-food joints. One can think of reasons why an individual restaurant around here would need to be referenced in those kinds of media to be notable - for example there may well be WP:COI issues and an assumption that it is just trying to use wikipedia for WP:PROMO. But that isn't the case with small radio stations, is it? Again, where I live we have several national networks, a couple of regional commercial and a single non-profit, charity-owned very local community radio station. Almost by definition, the most local station is not looking to promote itself on wikipedia because it gains nothing from advertising. Secondly, surely it is obvious that a very local radio station has a different kind of WP:AUD to a restaurant. A national newspaper may well review or feature a restaurant from a variety of places in the country - and abroad. A similar national newspaper is highly unlikely to feature or review a local radio station. I don't think this is actually an unusual situation for things on wikipedia. For example I was recently thinking about a species of ant. When I looked it up, it appears in a very small number of academic papers - because has only been named recently. By the standards of WP:GNG, the coverage is not significant. But by definition, WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES says that "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable". Why can we not therefore have a consensus that "All regulated and licensed radio stations that can be independently verified as existing are inherently notable"? To me it seems like the standard you're offering here is not possible to achieve with this kind of media, and therefore you are actually saying that "All non-national radio stations are inherently non-notable". JMWt (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that we already have guidelines we need to follow. They are intended for all organisations, big or small. If you want them changes you need to go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies) and get agreement there. Wikiprojects can't make guidelines that ignore Wikipedia-wide guidelines. Doug Weller (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
OK so you're arguing here that a High School needs to have significant secondary references in an international, national or regional publication to be notable. I'm sorry, I don't believe that. There are a whole class of different types of things which clearly do not have to meet that standard, whether WP:ORG spells that out or not. In practice it appears that High Schools are not - and often cannot be - notable according to WP:ORG BUT WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES accurately reflect the fact that it is good for the encyclopedia to include this kind of information.JMWt (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The same argument could be made for many small organisations or businesses. I am not convinced that every high school in the world is notable. Again, take it up at the appropriate talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
High schools and radio stations are not comparable topics. I live in Toronto, and chances are I'm probably never going to actually get to visit or live in Seattle or London or Cape Town in my life. I will never need to know anything about any high school that I or another member of my family didn't personally attend, so there's no inherently encyclopedic reason why I need encyclopedia articles about those cities' high schools — but even as a non-local who can't listen to them for myself, there are reasons why I need information about radio stations in those cities, such as KEXP or 107.8 Radio Jackie or Bush Radio. For one thing, media outlets are the majority of our sources for Wikipedia content — so as a person who doesn't already have native familiarity with those stations, I need a way to be able to evaluate their reliability if I ever come across an opportunity to use their content as sourcing for something. (Just as one frex among many, a few years ago I had to start an article about a musician who'd made the Polaris Music Prize shortlist, a South African expatriate who was the daughter of a former manager of Bush Radio. Which meant that even for a topic who had established her wikinotability in Canada, I still needed to directly access information about a South African radio station.) So radio stations and high schools are not comparable topics in terms of their encyclopedicity; they have very different roles, and occupy very different levels of extralocal relevance. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree on most of your points, but fundamentally disagree on this. WP is not just for my use, but for the good of society. It is entirely possible that at very least parents and students want to read sourced information about their school. There is very little difference, in my opinion, in that idea and that of a very local audience wanting to know about their radio station. Also wrt to schools, this has been the long-held practice for high schools on wikipedia. Anyway, if Doug Weller's views are widely held, then there is no point in people quoting WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES or WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES or WP:BCASTOUTCOMES in AfD discussions - even where these are clearly in place for a very large number of wikipedia pages - because they're not policy or guidelines and Admins can simply ignore them at will. Which, in my view, is a pretty worrying thing to be saying. JMWt (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
But my point is that an article about a radio station is not serving a purely local audience — there are legitimate and encyclopedic reasons why non-locals who aren't being directly served within that radio station's own broadcast range need that information too. But that's not something that can be said of high schools vis-à-vis anybody who doesn't have a personal connection to them. I'm not suggesting that high schools should be considered always non-notable, or that they should be considered always inherently notable either — that's outside the scope of this discussion. But high schools and radio stations aren't equivalent topics in terms of who the audience for an article about them is or isn't. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to fall down this rabbit-hole! JMWt (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out to you, however, local radio stations are not a class of topic that gets nationalized media coverage at all except in extraordinary circumstances. Out of all the radio stations here in Canada, for example, literally the only one that's graduated to nationally scoped coverage, in the entire time I've been contributing to Wikipedia, is CHOI-FM in Quebec City (because an attempt in 2004 to strip its license for violating broadcast standards spawned a series of public protests.) Essentially, you're arguing for a standard that would make it very nearly impossible for any radio station to ever be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, because with exceptions so rare that I could count them on my fingers almost no radio station in any country on earth ever actually gets there.
The basic WP:GNG does not require a topic to graduate to nationally-scoped coverage before it's eligible for an article. That's an extra condition that we apply to certain SNGs, over and above GNG, to prevent abuse by topics that aren't of any substantive encyclopedic interest. Without such a condition, every single restaurant in existence could try to get a Wikipedia article the moment it's gotten one review in the local alt-weekly, every single locally-owned furniture store could try to get a Wikipedia article on the basis of the local media having shown up for its fifth-anniversary "Big Birthday Blowout!" sale, every president of a local PTA could try to get an article on the basis of having been quoted twice in articles about the school board's attempts to close Poplar Park Elementary, and on and so forth. Some classes of topic are potentially open to advertorial abuse by non-notable local businesses or figures of no substantively encyclopedic interest, so we add an extra "show that you're significantly more notable than the norm, such as by having graduated to nationally-scoped coverage" condition on top of GNG, as an extra test to separate the topics that genuinely should be here from the ones that shouldn't. For some classes of topic, it's true that purely local coverage isn't enough to show that they warrant the attention of an encyclopedia — but basic GNG does not deprecate local coverage as a matter of course. Many other classes of topic are fundamentally encyclopedic, and those classes of topic do not require the subject to be getting coverage outside its own local area.
If a city is large enough that its mayors qualify for articles under WP:NPOL, then the mayor does not have to garner any non-local coverage to get an article — by the very nature of what being a mayor entails, a mayor is always going to get the bulk of his or her coverage locally, and might never actually get his or her name into the national media at all, but that doesn't have any bearing his or her eligibility for an article: if the city is large enough that its mayor is eligible in principle, then purely local sourcing is enough to get him in. A Member of Parliament or Congress, similarly, can be sourced primarily or exclusively to local rather than national coverage — and they're a topic for which once their election to that legislature can be verified, they get to keep an article permanently even if it's never sourced or substanced anywhere beyond "John Smith was a Member of Parliament, the end." No further criteria are used, beyond the fact of serving in the legislature, to separate members of that body into notable vs. non-notable piles; if they're verifiable as having served, they stay in Wikipedia regardless of any inadequacies of sourcing, and are treated thereafter as maintenance issues rather than deletion issues.
Radio stations are a topic of fundamentally encyclopedic interest, for which the correct notability standard is for us to get as close as feasibly possible to keeping all properly verifiable members of that class of topic. Of course we can't and never will be perfect about it, but it's entirely correct and proper and encyclopedic for us to get as close to that as we can within the bounds of what can be properly verified. After that, any remaining inadequacies of sourcing should quite rightly be flagged for maintenance, nobody's ever disagreed with that, but the only grounds for outright deletion of a radio station should, quite correctly, be complete unsourceability. The standard you're proposing, however, would leave us with almost no radio stations anywhere on earth ever qualifying for an article at all — and that's not the correct position for us to be in. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Bearcat, I take your point about the size of a city and the one about national coverage. I think WP:AUD needs amending. But I don't agree that regulated radio stations are automatically notable. Just as you can't compare them with high schools, you shouldn't compare them with MPs or Senators. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The problem, however, is that there's no other possible inclusion standard anywhere in between "any radio station that can be properly verified as (a) holding a permanent license, and (b) originating some of its own standalone programming" and "level of media coverage so heightened that almost no radio station could ever actually pass the test". We can't impose arbitrary notability cutoffs like a certain specific minimum ERP, a certain specific minimum number of listeners or a certain specific minimum market share — and we can't leave it up to personal subjectivity about whether any individual station has claimed enough heightened notability, by using an criterion like "impact in the community": how would you measure how much impact a station has had in its community, and how would you quantify how much impact in its community is enough? There has to be an objective standard by which all radio stations can be objectively measured as either passing or failing it, which leaves no space for any two radio stations to ever be treated differently from each other on any measure beyond their passage or failure of that objective base criterion — which means that the only possibilities that exist are either NMEDIA as it's written now, or a standard so tight that very nearly no radio station can ever qualify. There's no possible standard anywhere in between those two things.
And the reason I brought up the MPs/Senators comparison is that there are some classes of topic — some other examples include area codes, state or provincial or federal highways, winners of notable film/television/literary awards, plant and animal species and towns and cities — where the class of topic is important and notable enough that all verifiable members of that class get to keep articles on Wikipedia regardless of the inadequacy of sourcing that some of the articles in question might happen to be displaying right now. An inadequately sourced article in those classes of topic can be flagged for maintenance improvement (e.g. {{refimprove}}), but may not be deleted outright unless it proves to be a completely unsourceable hoax — because the class of topic is important and notable enough that we do have a responsibility to be as complete as possible a reference for all verifiable members of that class of topic. There are plenty of topics on Wikipedia where the notability of the class of thing trumps the deficiencies of any individual article, and an improperly written and improperly sourced article is only a cleanup candidate and cannot be deleted outright — and radio stations are a topic which does belong in that camp. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. AUD is not applicable, because a radio station is not an organisation. A radio station is a building (P H Collin, Dictionary of Business, Taylor & Francis, p 287) or other location, vehicle or set of equipment (Weik, Communications Standard Dictionary, Springer, p 808). Attempts to classify places, wherein some form of business happens to be conducted, as organisations are a perennial problem with ORG. I am fast coming to the conclusion that ORG needs to be demoted to stop this kind of thing. James500 (talk) 06:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
If we're citing dictionaries, OED says "an installation or establishment transmitting signals by radio; a sound broadcasting organization or channel.". But the relevant definition is the guideline's: "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." Community radio stations fit that description and are similar to other examples of "organizations" given in the guideline. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
The OED definition is less reliable than the specialist work from Springer, and mostly relates to things that are not organisations anyway. This is the problem with ORG: it is regularly invoked in attempts to freeze out topics that are not themselves organisations, but are somehow related to an organisation. This happens because, and only because, it is more restrictive than other guidelines such as NGEO. There is a determination to see topics as organisations, regardless of what they really are. A community radio station is obviously a building with a transmitter. Or it might just possibly refer to a radio service (ie a 'channel' that is the output of the station or net). It is clearly not a group of people. James500 (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's a group of people, how could it not be? A building with a transmitter is not a radio station, it's a potential radio station until an organised group of people start broadcasting. Doug Weller (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Radio stations have employees, nobody is saying otherwise. But "group of people" is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic of what constitutes a radio station — it's entirely possible for the "staff" of a radio station to consist of an iPod set to shuffle, and a group of people sitting around listening to music aren't a "radio station" if that music isn't being transmitted anywhere outside of that room. The defining characteristic of a radio station is the transmitter, not the "group of people". Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
People don't broadcast anything. The transmitter does the broadcasting. In any event, the activities of people inside a building are part of the history of that building and contribute to its notability. History is normally written on geographical lines. That is why a book about the 'History of England' will be about the activities of people in England, and not about 'natural history' in the sense of the geology of rocks. James500 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
DEFINING is not relevant here, as it is specifically written to apply only in the context of categorization. Could you provide an example of a wiki article that covers a radio station in the manner you are describing -- as a building, set of equipment, etc. but not as an organisation? I am having trouble understanding the distinction you are drawing between a "station" and a "service". --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 22:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
By "radio service", I am referring to the signals broadcast by the transmitter, viewed as a creative work. I am referring to the compilation of all radio programs broadcast by the transmitter. In the case of a music station, this would be the compilation of songs, adverts and comments by the DJ, viewed primarily as a creative list.
To be frank, even if you can manage to persuade people that a radio station is an organisation (which it isn't), you won't achieve much. Nothing will be deleted, there will just be a shift in the focus of articles analogous to 1E. Instead of having an article on "Station X" we will have "building occupied (or transmitter used) by Station X" or "radio programming broadcast by Station X" neither of which is affected by ORG, and both of which are very likely to satisfy GNG. Remember that ORG does not apply to the products and services of non notable organisations, which can be notable in their own right, let alone to their buildings or creative works. And I don't have to show that coverage of a non-organisation is not also coverage of an organisation. You have to prove that the coverage is only coverage of an organisation, and is not also coverage of a non organisation. That is how ORG really works. I think you have virtually no chance of doing that.
DEFINING might be relevant by analogy. We do have IAR. James500 (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm totally following this, but are we here discussing the difference between BBC Radio 2 (a British national radio broadcaster) and the BBC (the British corporation behind it)? The former page says almost nothing about the organisation behind the channel (or the arrangement of that organisation), it is almost entirely discussing the content of the broadcasts.
I don't really see that BBC Radio 2 can really be described as being about the physical machinery needed to get the radio waves into the atmosphere, but neither is it really about an organisation set up in order to arrange itself to get radio waves into the atmosphere. Perhaps it is a fine difference - but to me there is a clear difference between an "organisation" and a radio "service". The BBC is an organisation, which can clearly be described as notable, in the sense that there is clearly debate and discussion about how it is run which is of interest to a wide WP audience. The organisation behind a small radio station might be totally non-notable: nobody beyond those working for it care very much about the way it is run. But that doesn't have a bearing on the notability of the radio service, does it? I'm trying to think of another example: UVB-76 is broadcast by an unknown source, which might be some kid in a bedroom (unlikely, I'd agree). But the notability is not related to the organisation behind it. We can't say "this is not notable" if it turns out to be a kid in a bedroom, right? It is notable because it has been noted as a phenomena. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Notability of radio stations

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Notability of radio stations. Sixth of March 00:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Requesting input re: adding large list of staff salaries to an article

I am seeking input regarding an author adding a large list of employee salaries to an article. I am unable to find any guidelines outside of infobox templates that would refute or validate these additions. Please see the talk at:

--<fontcolor="#005000">☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you again for raising my edit upon my request. But to be fair to me, I take exception with your characterization. The list is just 12 lines listing the top functionaries which is explicitly allowed by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
Contrary to you previously citing it as forbiding it.
Though it does not address the addition of a compensation column.

Formulairis990 (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why radio station articles should include all those names, school articles are meant to include only notable staff.Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
If the salaries are somehow notable, like if they are making WAAAY over the normal (ie: Howard Stern money) or if they are #1 in the market and working for peanuts, then yes, it's notable.
If not, if it is just a breakdown of who gets paid what (since this is an NPR station, that would be public knowledge and available elsewhere), then it isn't notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you guys actually read the discussion and acquaint yourselves with the data? Did you guys bother to follow the Wikipedia guideline link I cited above? The evidence I provided for it's notability is not even acknowledged by you two. That's where the WNYC talk page discussion stalled as well. I was told it was not notable without rational, I take the time to respond with external evidence and rational, but to the meager extent my evidence is given an evaluation it came down to nothing more than: because, that's why. That's genuinely abusive to engage me in a discussion, I take the time to respond, and then not have my response evaluated.

In the link provided above Wikipedia explicitly states that a simple lists are prohibited "EXCEPT" those consisting of "CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries". Though this doesn't mention compensation, the quote is synonymous with the Form 990 data title: "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees". See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not Ironically the page is given as evidence for exclusion of having a list.

Though throwing URLS at new authors(e.g. me) I've come to see as a cheap intimidation trick in the hopes that the author doesn't actually read what guidelines say. This has been a dispiriting exercise, which recalls to mind the criticisms I've heard of Wikipedia authors over the years in the popular press, including the leaked criticism by the founder himself. Yesterday it took a 5,000 character discussion with an author to have him return the two characters "AM" that he removed out of the blue in the WNYC page. He literally claimed that this project's guidelines called for the ambiguity the removal caused. I went through the guidelines, and pointed out to him that it doesn't cover the current case. It seemed this contributed to his decision to return the two characters.

Doug Weller states: "school articles are meant to include only notable staff"

Please clarify, I genuinely did not understand what you were saying. Did you mean to use the School guidelines as an analogue? If so, then this data, putting aside the compensation, meets your criteria. The data is legally titled as: "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees", in other words "notable staff."

Neutralhomer states: "If the salaries are somehow notable, like if they are making WAAAY over the normal (ie: Howard Stern money) or if they are #1 in the market and working for peanuts, then yes, it's notable.

if it is just a breakdown of who gets paid what (since this is an NPR station, that would be public knowledge and available elsewhere), then it isn't notable."

This comment I don't understand. The primary criterion for inclusion IS the existence of notable outside sourcing. And yes the salaries appear "WAAAY over normal" by public radio standards, based on my limited survey, and yes they are the #1 public radio in the market. But my edit does NOT include these observations, and in particular the compensation one, because that would be original research. And my notability evidence makes no such interpretation. Again please see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and read my evidence on the WNYC TALK page. I give a brief summary of the notability evidence at the end of the discussion. Formulairis990 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines needed for non-profit aspects of topic subject

To expand on ☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring)'s request for input on the WNYC compensation:

An issue I've observed regarding my WNYC compensation edit is that the objecting authors believe the non-profit business aspect of the topic subject doee not need to be addressed in much detail. This viewpoint disregards an integral aspect of the subject: that it is actually a highly notable non-profit organization that runs a radio station. The subject's article needs to cover this, as an article would for any notable non-profit organization would, and not solely focus on the radio component with little to no treatment of the non-profit business side.

So in addition to the notable employee compensation data portion from the IRS Form 990 that Loriendrew requested input on, I request input on the data in the form in total. For example the WNYC total revenue data came from the same form, but Loriendrew and others do not object to its inclusion.

Perhaps such input should be provided by another project? Formulairis990 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees [excluding compensation]

Hello. Until the compensation issue is sorted out. I would like to roll out the "Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees" info, minus the compensation column.
Please see the proposed section on the WNYC talk page.

Thank you. Formulairis990 (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Template:PBS member stations outside of the United States

Is there any use for {{PBS member stations outside of the United States}}? I converted it to a navbox, but it is small and PBS isn't mentioned at any of the articles. I don't know of a parent article, either. —PC-XT+ 05:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That template is complete bullshit, asserting but not sourcing that three commercial stations in Canada are PBS members. And none of them have any evidence of a PBS affiliation locatable anywhere else either. I've speedied it as a WP:HOAX. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

RIP Dravecky

It is with a heavy heart that I must annouce that Dravecky has passed away. He passed on April 23, 2016 while he was attending WhoFest in Dallas. He was 47.

As most of you know, Edtypically worked here in the radio station areas, but he did work on Texas and Huntsville history as well. He was a prolific DYK'er as well. Dravecky attended Georgia Tech and was a former disc jockey, hence his love for radio. He co-founded FenCon and was well known in the science fiction and fantasy convention world.

His friends and family have set up a GiveForward account to help with funeral expenses.

He leaves behind his longtime girlfriend Robyn, his family, his friends in the CON community and his friends here on Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see this. His contributions -- both to this project and to the site overall -- will live on. Levdr1lp / talk 23:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems like a lifetime ago, but I remember the name "Dravecky" well. The number of radio station articles the two of us moved around to firmly implement the established naming conventions which are still in use today is likely obscene. His was always a username that, when it appears in your watchlist, there is no need to even check if the change was correct/warranted/appropriate/etc. - it had to be, because Dravecky made the edit. RIP. JPG-GR (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Here is a link to his user and talk page and contributions: Dravecky (talk · contribs). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Damn, Dravecky was a great guy and awesome contributor and one of the rocks of WPRS with some work on TVS too. Apologies for the late response on here but he will definitely missed. My thoughts are with his family and friends, and all of you who knew him from here. Nate • (chatter) 17:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

KCMP

An IP editor keeps reverting my edit on KCMP's page, in which I have changed "short-lived 1990s station REV-105" to "the former Rev 105", as, to me at least, when Rev 105 was operation doesn't seem germain to the article about KCMP. I don't wish to engage in an edit war, and have left messages on a couple of IP addresses' talk pages stating my reasoning. Frankly, the whole KCMP page seems to read like the station's advocates are writing loving, unsourced things about the station (where it takes its inspiration from, for example). Again, I don't wish to engage in an edit war, so if anyone has any constructive comments/criticism to make the page more neutral & a better read, please do.Also, if I am right or wrong in my stance, please let me know & why. Stereorock (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Notability of proposed but not launched radio stations

I have a question which I'd like to raise for discussion, about a potential conflict between WP:NMEDIA and actual practice.

Officially, NMEDIA confers notability on a radio station only if it meets both of two conditions: possessing a broadcast license and having an established broadcast history (i.e. actually operating). In practice, however, WPRS has frequently looked the other way on the second condition, allowing an article about a proposed but not yet launched radio station to stand as soon as its license approval or "construction permit" is granted.

There's an example of the limitations of this approach unfolding in Montreal right now, where a company called TTP Media was granted three licenses in 2013 for stations on AM 600, AM 850 and AM 940 — as of June 19, however, the 850 license has expired unbuilt, and while 600 and 940 are technically still active licenses, they're also both still unbuilt as of today and will expire in November if they haven't been launched by then. Furthermore, apparently Montreal's established news media have been able to find no discernible indication of TTP engaging in the amount of corporate activity that would have to be happening right now in order to get two radio stations launched by November. So, while acknowledging that WP:CRYSTAL prevents me from stating anything definitive yet, the balance of probabilities at this point is that none of the three stations is actually going to launch. Accordingly, I've already had to nominate 850 for deletion, and while for the moment I'm waiting for it to become official in the case of 600 and 940, they're likely to have to be deleted in the fall as well.

This, then, is my question: should WPRS continue to permit articles about stations that have been licensed but not yet launched, and then target the ones that expire unbuilt for deletion only after they expire, or should we take NMEDIA more seriously by cracking down on articles about unlaunched stations, and switch to restricting them to draftspace until such time as they actually launch? I personally lean toward the latter, but I can see valid arguments for the former — so I'm raising this discussion as a consensus test rather than arbitrarily imposing my personal preference or proceeding with any immediate deletions beyond the one station that's already verifiably DOA. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

If the station hasn't launched, actually begun broadcasting, like AM850 in Montreal, then it is not notable. Dravecky nom'd a few "on paper" stations before and I supported those deletions. - Neutralhomer has Escaped • Talk • 20:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
The issue is that we haven't been consistent about that, however. Category:Proposed radio stations currently contains over 30 other stations that (a) have launched and should thus be removed from it, (b) are still in the construction pipeline and thus wouldn't have articles at all yet if we were actually being strict about following our own stated rules, or (c) expired unbuilt and will never launch at all, but never actually got deleted for some reason — I can review the Canadian ones right now to determine which camp each one belongs in, but somebody with better knowledge about US broadcasting will have to work on the US side (I can AFD the ones whose articles already say the CP expired unbuilt, but I don't necessarily know where to figure out if a station is operating or not if its article doesn't already say it's dead.) Not to mention that if we were really following our rules properly, Category:Proposed radio stations wouldn't even exist as a category because there wouldn't be any articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Update: I have now removed the category from several stations that are in full operation, and have listed several for deletion whose articles explicitly state that their CPs are expired. I'm continuing to investigate the remaining Canadian stations, but still require some assistance with the American ones that haven't been resolved yet. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Bearcat: Well, to be honest, the Proposed Radio Station category was part of Dravecky's editing. No one picked it up after his passing. It, admittedly, fell by the wayside. Let me finish dinner (about 5 minutes) and I will take a look at the ones left in the category. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:17 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
@Bearcat: So far KCIZ-LP and KMFE-LP look to be stations that are in the process of being built. Someone just jumped the gun in creating the articles.
KNAN still had the category on the page, but it is on the air. I removed the category.
KWXR is licensed, but silent. That AfD should be withdrawn. KXWY is also licensed.
Unfortunately, KXWY and KWXR are owned by Cochise Media Licenses and they are notorious for not having any web presence, having anything out there about their stations' formats, nothing.
KXZS has been around since 2008, KZXT has been around since 2006. Both stations are in the process of being sold from different companies to JER Licenses. As such, they are currently silent, but not proposed. I removed the category from both pages.
W263CL no longer exists. There isn't a license for that station in the FCC database. Probably moved during the current "Add a Translator to an AM Station to Save AM Radio" mess the FCC is got going on.
There has been no movement on WEAD-LP since 2014. I would nominate that one until there is some movement on the CP.
WESL no longer exists. Nothing in the FCC database regarding it. Nominate that one too.
There hasn't been any movement on WJQY-LP since 2014 either. Add that one to the nominate pile.
The Facebook page for WSPJ-LP says they'll be "coming to a device near you" in 2015. Their website says they'll be "lighting up" in 2016. Unfortunately, they haven't had any movement since 2014. Add it to the nominate pile.
No movement on WVDJ-LP since 2015. Add it to the nominate pile.
I'm going to leave the Canadian ones up to you, since you know more about Canadian radio than I ever will - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:50 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
Going by what the KWXR article says, that station has never actually broadcast at all, but has only ever existed as a non-operating "silent" station. I'm willing to reword my nomination for clarity, but a station in those circumstances doesn't pass NMEDIA just because it has a license, because it still has no established history of actually broadcasting a signal — it's still a thing that IMO we shouldn't have an article about until its owners actually get some real programming up and running. If you disagree, then you can express in the AFD discussion why it should be kept — but I'm not willing to withdraw the nomination if that's the circumstance it's in. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
All of the Canadian ones have now been either updated to reflect their current activity, redirected to another article in a few cases, or listed for deletion if their launch remained unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I see your point when it comes to KWXR. After looking through the FCC filings, it appears they took the station silent immediately after receiving their License to Cover (LTC). Since they do have their LTC, one could say they meet NMEDIA, but others could say they don't since they haven't broadcast anything. I'm on the fence on this one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:59 on August 14, 2016 (UTC)
While it's probably not applicable to the stations we are talking about right now, it is possible that a proposed radio station will meet WP:GNG even if it does not meet any radio-station- or media-specific guideline. Obviously, such a station can have an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
To say a guideline "confers" notability kind of bothers me. Maybe I'm being too literal, but the phrase seems to give the guideline "Royal power to bestow notability by decree." I can almost hear an electronic voice saying "I King Guideline Notability Media hereby dub thee article 'notable' as a media-related article and are hereby entitled to all of the rights and privileges thereof."
I find it much more helpful to think of it this way: Guidelines attempt to distill the "consent opinion" of Wikipedia editors over time into written form. Notability guidelines attempt to summarize and reflect the community's idea of what makes a topic notable. It is this "community idea" of notability - which cannot be known with certainty and which is constantly evolving - that actually determines what is and is not notable. All a notability guideline does is say that an article very likely is or is not notable by Wikipedia standards.
I think most regular editors "get" this idea, but I'm putting it here for the relative newcomers who may come away with the idea that notability guidelines are some kind of official document with magic powers to declare a topic notable or not, without recourse or appeal. Even a topic that seems, at first glance, to meet the notability guidelines can be challenged and deleted for lack of notability, and the guidelines themselves are subject to revision. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Market Boundaries in New England

I'm wondering what market these stations are in, as they appear in multiple markets. Note NEK is Northeast Kingdom,

Providence/New London (VEI, EAN)

Newport section/New London (MNP, CRI, SKP, MOS, WRX)

Providence/New Bedford (CTK, JFD, SNE, KKB)

Cape Cod/New Bedford (CIB)

New London/Long Island (EHM, ELJ, JJF)

Worcester/Boston (AAF, SRS due to power)

Worc/Bos/Man (XLO)

Portsmouth/Man/Bos (CRB, XRV)

Portsmouth/Manchester (OKQ)

Manchester/Lakes (ZID, GIR)

Portsmouth/Portland (HTP, BQQ, XEX)

Portsmouth/Lakes (NHI, QSO)

Lakes/NEK (VMJ, BNC, MWV)

Lakes/NEK/Portland (HOM, PKQ)

Portland/Augusta (FNK, BLM, THT)

Bangor/North Maine/Downeast (SYY, KSQ)

Boston/Providence (WSNE)

Providence/Worcester (WWKX)

Boston/Cape/Providence (WPLM both) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newenglandradio (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The abolishment of non-Nielsen "market" templates and consolidation (Pittsfield to Albany, NEK to Montpelier, NNH and Lewiston to Portland, Downeast to Bangor, North Maine to Western NB (like TV)), though I'd rather have them treated as "radio regions" or the like. The creation of a Tristate regional template, i.e. WKNE, WSNI, WDER, WRSI, WFNX, WJDF, WXLF, WFYX) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newenglandradio (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

This may constitute WP:OR as fringe signals on good radios can be heard outside of their target market. By the way, WSNE-FM & WWKX are Providence-market stations only. How do I know this? I am a native Rhode Islander & work in the industry. See, this is where it gets tricky; we have to be careful about original research. Even RadioLocator's maps are approximations. Going off of those signals could put a station in a market that it doesn't target. WCTK is not a Boston station, but it does get a rating there, for example. WVEI-FM is a Providence-market signal that doesn't care a lick about New London (except for the advertisers). Unfortunately, a lot of what you're asking is, I think, dependent on original research.Stereorock (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Radio templates being listed for deletion

[[5]] There are 3 templates being relisted for deletion as there was no consensus before. I argued that they should stay because you never know when a station will change format. There could also be stations in said states that are in a format but just aren't listed for whatever reason.Stereorock (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

They were all deleted. I guess everybody should watch all other format templates as they too may fall to the deletionists.Stereorock (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations/Archive_2016&oldid=1084186757"