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 keep. Nominated in good faith but no consensus to delete (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WLRY[edit]

WLRY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A search shows up no evidence that this meets WP:ORG which says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Dougweller (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Individual licensed broadcasting stations almost always are kept when they are nominated for deletion. Many editors consider them inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep FCC-licensed radio station; completely meets guidelines for an article here. Nate • (chatter) 09:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What are the guidelines that it meets then please? Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The FCC FM database lists the station as a "Class A" FM station with all of 1.1kW of power. By comparison a very small station near me is Class C and has 15.3 kW of power (and is listed on WP as most Class C FM stations are). I doubt it meets even the loose proposed standards at [1] Collect (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What does a failed, never-adopted guideline from 3 years ago have to do with anything? - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, if you want to measure the number of people served, comparing wattage is meaningless in most cases. This station puts its signal over most of Columbus, Ohio, so it likely serves far more than any 100,000 watt blowtorch in Montana or the Dakotas. (In any case, they're all notable.) - Dravecky (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Keep Possible - Station has a FCC license, that gives it notablity. This notablity has precedent from other AfD discussions. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per years of consistent precedent, government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally presumed notable infrastructure in the same way as small towns and major highways. The essay at Wikipedia:Notability (media) is informative in this topic. - Dravecky (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Licensed radio stations have consistently been held to be notable — beyond other links provided, see also the information on the common AfD outcomes page. Mlaffs (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Have I got this right? There is nothing in the guidelines that says an FCC licence per se makes a radio station notable. There is an essay WP:NMEthat says "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." In other words, an FCC licence isn't a guarantee of notability. And there is a 'common outcomes' article that says flatly "are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." which doesn't agree with the essay. The last mention of radio on the talk page is Sept. 2007. Why isn't this in the guidelines if it's cut and dried? Isn't that what they are for, so that people can use them and make sensible decisions on whether or not to take an article to AfD? I'm not trying to be difficult, but this seems pretty messy and contradictory. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that they are keeps because time and again there's been enough notability once people go looking for it. Now, automatically including all high schools, Olympic and professional athletes, and albums from notable artists? Well... :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have just substantially overhauled the article to bring it up past "stub" status and to expand on the station's unique programming originated from its own studios. - Dravecky (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a full service station with a regular not a limited license broadcasted at 1100 watts power. I do not think limited range noncommercial stations with less than full licensing should be generally included, but this is not at all in that class. DGG (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP WLRY is a FCC licensed and credible station. Dougweller is "OFF THE HOOK" and acting like a "DELETE HUNGRY WOLF"! This action is a direct retalliation for a prior AfD. Does Wikipedia have any policy on abuse and harrasment?? Someone really should take a look at this behavior.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Full_Armor_of_God_Broadcast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/WTGO-LP#WTGO-LP

there is an obvious corolation here.. Why are these stations being targeted? This is ridiculous!Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the above AfD may have drawn Dougweller's attention to this article, I don't have any reason to believe that this nomination was not made in good faith. The article in its nominated state lacked references of the type that one would expect to find in a normal article to evidence notability. The nominator's statement suggests that they did search for sources to establish notability. The nominator quite correctly points out that written guidelines regarding notability standards for radio stations are contradictory. Those three steps — reading the article carefully, searching for sources themselves, and reviewing the relevant policy/guidelines — are exactly what I would expect of anyone considering nominating an article for deletion. I'd remind User:Ivanhoe610fa that faith — particularly the assumption of good faith — is just as important in this community as it is in others with which they're perhaps more familiar. Mlaffs (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies I sincerly appologize for the misunderstanding and for my harsh words. Forgive me. Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Keep Possible FCC licensed station. Although 173.88.29.193 has pointed out a very interesting correlation, I am going to ask you to remain civil. mynameinc^{Ottoman project} 15:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Yes, there's a correlation. I found those articles looking at links to Full Armor. As I read the guidelines, these articles failed them. I still think that the guidelines should mention radio stations. I see no chance of this article being deleted, although we should do something about the guidelines as there is no way I would have nominated it if I'd realised that (wrongly I think) an FCC license was enough to show notability. I don't like wasting my time or that of others when a simple tweak would have avoided it. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Following WP:BEFORE and starting with notability, ref-improve, or other tagging plus an inquiry at WP:WPRS instead of jumping right to AfD would have also been an effective time-saving strategy. - Dravecky (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be one of those areas like being an Olympic athlete that has been deemed to be automatically notable. It could certainly be added to the guideline, but since I don't we should have areas of automatic notability I think we should leave things as is. Radio stations like Olympic athletes are usually notable, whether they should all be universally considered so, I'm not sure. If no sources and coverage can be found, I can see including them in lists or articles with more general coverage, but an article on things for which there are no sources seems a bit much. The same issue has also arisen with the geography of places and high schools (which are basically procedurally kept at this point). ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:26, 24 May 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.