The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Wheeler, Inc.[edit]

Mel Wheeler, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about an owner of a few radio stations in Virginia. I know from my own knowledge that this company used to own a television station in my area. However, my own knowledge doesn't suffice for actual research. It is very poorly written, with little to no research done on it. I tried to find further information to help the article on Google, to no avail. Their website says it's under construction. I can find no record of their headquarters in Texas. Seems like somebody from the company wrote this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlh56880 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/07 11:08:17

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A wholesale rewrite is needed, but a deletion is not. This is a company that owns radio stations in Southwest Virginia. See West Virginia Radio Corporation or Red Zebra Broadcasting for like companies. A deletion is not required in this situation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no sources for this article, so the company is not notable and based on Mlh's research, no sources are likely to be found. This makes this article very different from that on Red Zebra Broadcasting, which has 11 references. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UMMM... just because there are no listed sources does not make it non-notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, how do we rewrite the article if there aren't any sources? Clearly nonnotable. Nyttend (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If the only argument to keep is a WP:WAX argument, that's nowhere close to good enough. The fundamental question is this: does this company meet the requirements of WP:V? It does not, and therefore an article can't be supported.  RGTraynor  13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isnt your mom&pop type operation... its bigger than that. A Gsearch found plenty ... just a matter of sifting through to find the relevent stuff. Although this one might be on the edge of RS, I would tend to consider it a RS. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally doubt anyone from within the company would list the HQ as Texas. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: One of the limitations of Google searches is the tendency of people to use (for example) "mel" + "wheeler" + "inc", which naturally would return a whopping lot of hits, instead of the considerably more accurate "Mel Wheeler, Inc." in advanced search. Unsurprisingly, that reduces the number of raw hits by a hundredfold. What remains is the aforementioned non-working website, the Wikipedia article, the websites of the radio stations in question and a bunch of business directory listings. Reliable, independent sources describing anything at all about this company other than its mere existence and address are unforthcoming (this having just burned ten minutes of my life).  RGTraynor  09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done my sifting ... not enough out there to support the RS element. Delete although I have a feeling that a much better Article will eventually be made. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seriously, you guys couldn't find a reliable source for the fact that this company is based in Texas? A simple Google News Archive search brought me this article, noting the purchase of KRCG TV from "Mel Wheeler, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas," and this article, noting the same purchase of the station owned by "Texas-based Mel Wheeler Inc." There is plenty of media coverage showing that this company is or was the owner of several notable broadcast stations. Also, this FCC document shows that at least in 2000, Mel Wheeler, Inc. was the second largest radio station owner in the Roanoke-Lynchburg market, right after Clear Channel; the two companies owning 91% of the radio market. That's pretty notable, in my eyes. DHowell (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Splendid; of course, no one was suggesting that this company did not exist. That still falls short of WP:CORP's primary criterion: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Mere "This station was bought by this company" articles do not establish notability, nor does being the second biggest fish in the pond in the 154th largest radio market in the US.  RGTraynor  20:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why you brought up the straw man that "no one was suggesting that the company didn't exist", because I was responding to the suggestion that sources didn't exist, and I completely disproved that. Now you are claiming that the sources don't have significant coverage, and that being in the "154th largest radio market" somehow makes the company non-notable; but WP:CORP says "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations," and articles such as this one in Mediaweek do seem to have significant coverage of the subject. The 35 articles in the Google News search, even if each one by itself weren't enough to constitute "significant coverage", together are enough to write a substantial article about this company and its history. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That's exactly what we have here. DHowell (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the suggestion that sources didn't exist" was not implied... I looked at the same sources you did during my look. I didnt feel that I could craft them togeather to a Article that would imply any WP:N of its own. If you feel that you can bring togeather some of the more reliable of the sources to do that job convincingly, by all means, please do so. I know, I could not do so. I cannot even make sense of the FCC Document you put forth. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.