Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIWS-FM

CIWS-FM

CIWS-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is a local radio station, originally an internet broadcaster, speedy-deleted at another title. I've decided to send this through AfD because I'm uncertain whether the station's government license constitutes a minimal claim of notability. Still, delete for non-notability and COI concerns. (The author admits affiliation with the station in my most recent talk archive.) Xoloz 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:AFDP, the criteria that radio stations have typically had to meet to survive here, in the absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations, are (a) to be licensed by the appropriate regulatory body, and (b) to originate at least part of its programming schedule in its own studios. This station meets both of those; we don't have any other criteria for determining the notability or non-notability of a radio station beyond that. COI issues aren't really a bulletproof deletion argument; those can be cleaned up. I've already taken a weedwhacker to the few truly egregious bits of the article, and while what remains could use a few minor touch-ups for writing style there isn't anything left that presents neutrality issues. COI means "give this an extra once-over for NPOV", not "delete this on principle no matter how NPOV it is". So I guess that puts me on the keep side. Bearcat 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, as I mentioned on the talk page this entry is very similar to some 50 entries in the category Community Radio Stations in Canada. I'm not sure why Xoloz would mark for delete without doing adequate research.

Also, while you have changed the main page from WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, which is fine, there is a precedent on the Community radio stations in Canada category for sticking with WhiStle Radio as the main page (Ridge Radio).

I'm unclear as to why COI issues are being raised. The station is a not-for-profit, so while I am affiliated with the station, there is no monetary gain to be had.

Last, the section Community Radio in Canada wasn't "egregious", at least, if you understand the word to mean "notably bad". Perhaps it was off topic, and should have been a link to somehwhere else, but community radio in Canada is a special type of radio licence, quite different from a commerical station (or the CBC), and the section in Community Radio doesn't fully describe what the term means in Canada.

WhiStle Radio 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ridge Radio and RAV-FM are different because they don't have CXXX-format call signs. If a radio station has one, then Wikipedia policy requires that to be the article title. Ridge and RAV, however, have a completely different call sign format that consists of a mix of letters and numbers (Ridge's is "VEK565" and RAV's is "CFU758") and is far too obscure to be usable as an article title. And actually, Ridge is apparently defunct and might well be deletable in its current form.

As for the "community radio in Canada" section, that information should be added to the community radio article if it isn't already there, not to individual radio stations. Bearcat 16:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Bearcat. GreenJoe 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bearcat for the policy. Call letters is the better system. I don't want you thinking that I thoughtlessly used WhiStle Radio as the title though. My thinking was that most people would use the name WhiStle Radio for a search (I'm sure only those in and around W-S will look up this entry). I note that you have re-directed WhiStle Radio to CIWS-FM, so it all washes out anyhow.

And I will add the information about Community Radio to the proper place. Never having added information to Wikipedia before I was a bit hesitant, but I see now there are plenty of checks and balances. Thanks for your support Bearcat and GreenJoe. WhiStle Radio 16:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Bearcat, in your appeal to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, you appear to be predicting from past AfD's what other participants in this AfD are going to recommend. This is an odd way for you (or anybody) to participate in an AfD. Shouldn't you advance your own opinion about the nominated article instead of trying to predict what others will say? Your lamenting the "absence of an actual policy that specifically addresses radio stations" is equally strange; what's wrong with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? The question we should be asking here is, is it possible to write an encyclopedia article here that passes these policies?

  The appeal to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is flawed for at least two other reasons. One, notability is not a blanket; it makes no sense to say all radio stations that satisfy criteria (a) and (b) are "notable," because to write a neutral verifiable encyclopedia article on a radio station, or on anything, we need multiple non-trivial independent sources. That's what notability means on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What about article x?. Two, consensus can change; previous AfD's are not court cases, and they do not serve as "precedents." For these reasons (and maybe others I'm not thinking of), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes notes at the top that "This page is not policy" (bold in original).

  Now, we need to actually investigate whether it's possible to write a neutral verifiable article here.[1][2][3][4] Guess not. Delete. Finally, as an explanation, please note that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view doesn't just mean that the tone should be neutral. It means that all points of view from reliable sources, that have investigated the topic in-depth, should be represented. Thus, in a case like this, where no non-trivial reliable sources are evident, a neutral article is impossible. And no, the government-issued licence,[5] which regurgitates what the "applicant" wrote on the application, is not a reliable source. Pan Dan 16:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Pan Dan, I disagree with your statement that a government-issued licence is not a "reliable source." It shows that WhiStle Radio is a licenced community station, which is my claim, as well as the things that follow (e.g., WhiStle Radio is not-for-profit, call letters can be found in a predictable registry, power claimed can be verified). In deciding to delete my entry your sole, unstated, reason seems to be that I'm the author and I'm affiliated with the station. I'm still unclear as to why you ignore the 50 precedents I cited. Is the information I provide materially different? WhiStle Radio 17:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• The government-issued license is a reliable source for the attributes you mention. Likewise, my passport and drivers license are reliable sources for similarly trivial factoids about me. But Wikipedia is not a directory and we need more than that--significant coverage in 3rd-party sources--for an encyclopedia article. The non-trivial information on that government website is verified only by the applicant and has been noted by no sources independent of the station, as far as I can tell.

  No, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest has nothing to do with my recommendation. As Bearcat correctly noted, conflict of interest is not a reason to delete.

  If you're unclear why I ignored the 50 other radio station articles you cited, then you should read the 2nd paragraph of my previous comment again. Pan Dan 18:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)