| Revision as of 04:34, 8 July 2021 edit4meter4 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users112,897 edits →DYWC-FM← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:06, 8 July 2021 edit undoAlsee (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers9,124 edits →DYWC-FM: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the ]. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''': Government and third-party sources show that it is, indeed, on the air and sources back it up. GNG satisfied, NMEDIA is happy too. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | *'''Keep''': Government and third-party sources show that it is, indeed, on the air and sources back it up. GNG satisfied, NMEDIA is happy too. :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;">] • ] • 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)</small> | ||
| **'''Comment''' - sorry, that's not what GNG means. As you well know. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | |||
| **''Existence'' does not satisfy GNG, and NMEDIA is currently being rejected 2-to-1 in an RFC. ] (]) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' One of the two non-listing sources is a dead link, and the other is not significant coverage. (I'd suggest a redirect to ] as an ATD if it were mentioned there that the diocese has a radio division.) A couple of sidebars, one to {{u|SBKSPP}} and the other to {{u|Onel5969}}. First, to SBKSPP, I hope these AfDs and the comments at the RfC are sending a message that the quality of these Philippines radio station pages needs to improve and higher-quality sources are required. Secondly, I can't say I'm particularly enthused with the fact that Onel5969 continues to nominate pages for deletion at a time when there is a large notability discussion taking place (though I generally agree this fails the GNG at this time). ] (she/her • ] • ]) 06:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' One of the two non-listing sources is a dead link, and the other is not significant coverage. (I'd suggest a redirect to ] as an ATD if it were mentioned there that the diocese has a radio division.) A couple of sidebars, one to {{u|SBKSPP}} and the other to {{u|Onel5969}}. First, to SBKSPP, I hope these AfDs and the comments at the RfC are sending a message that the quality of these Philippines radio station pages needs to improve and higher-quality sources are required. Secondly, I can't say I'm particularly enthused with the fact that Onel5969 continues to nominate pages for deletion at a time when there is a large notability discussion taking place (though I generally agree this fails the GNG at this time). ] (she/her • ] • ]) 06:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ** {{u|Sammi Brie}}, most of these pages were redirects, and have been recreated and are now appearing in the NPP queue backlog (this particular one wasn't). As they come up during my NPP is when I take action. If they were left as redirects, this wouldn't be an issue, but several editors insist on recreating them. I'd be more than happy to simply turn them back into redirects. But turning them into redirects at this time is simply a waste of time, meanwhile they add to the NPP backlog. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | ** {{u|Sammi Brie}}, most of these pages were redirects, and have been recreated and are now appearing in the NPP queue backlog (this particular one wasn't). As they come up during my NPP is when I take action. If they were left as redirects, this wouldn't be an issue, but several editors insist on recreating them. I'd be more than happy to simply turn them back into redirects. But turning them into redirects at this time is simply a waste of time, meanwhile they add to the NPP backlog. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | ||
| Line 18: | Line 19: | ||
| *'''Comment''' - again, simply stating something pass GNG, when it so evidently does not, is not a way to bolster your argument. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' - again, simply stating something pass GNG, when it so evidently does not, is not a way to bolster your argument. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. Sources are sparse and not significant. Fails ].] (]) 04:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Sources are sparse and not significant. Fails ].] (]) 04:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. I searched and searched. I was unable to find sources to support Notability. ]: ''No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition''. ] (]) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:06, 8 July 2021
DYWC-FM
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- DYWC-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another station which does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Government and third-party sources show that it is, indeed, on the air and sources back it up. GNG satisfied, NMEDIA is happy too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - sorry, that's not what GNG means. As you well know. Onel5969 04:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Existence does not satisfy GNG, and NMEDIA is currently being rejected 2-to-1 in an RFC. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete One of the two non-listing sources is a dead link, and the other is not significant coverage. (I'd suggest a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Dumaguete as an ATD if it were mentioned there that the diocese has a radio division.) A couple of sidebars, one to SBKSPP and the other to Onel5969. First, to SBKSPP, I hope these AfDs and the comments at the RfC are sending a message that the quality of these Philippines radio station pages needs to improve and higher-quality sources are required. Secondly, I can't say I'm particularly enthused with the fact that Onel5969 continues to nominate pages for deletion at a time when there is a large notability discussion taking place (though I generally agree this fails the GNG at this time). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sammi Brie, most of these pages were redirects, and have been recreated and are now appearing in the NPP queue backlog (this particular one wasn't). As they come up during my NPP is when I take action. If they were left as redirects, this wouldn't be an issue, but several editors insist on recreating them. I'd be more than happy to simply turn them back into redirects. But turning them into redirects at this time is simply a waste of time, meanwhile they add to the NPP backlog. Onel5969 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this station does not pass WP:GNG, all of the coverage has some sort of problem with it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – there's no significant coverage sufficient to meet the GNG, and no plausible redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Sources 2 and 3 indicate part of the station's programming. Source 4 indicates the station's broadcast coverage. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Astig's and Neutralhomer's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - again, simply stating something pass GNG, when it so evidently does not, is not a way to bolster your argument. Onel5969 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are sparse and not significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. I searched and searched. I was unable to find sources to support Notability. WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)