- 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 redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio. czar 03:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- DYNG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Does not meet WP:GNG; all sources are just passing mentions or not independent. MB 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MB 15:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio or delete. No standalone notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. The sources in the article are reliable enough, with some in-depth, IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per SBKSPP. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:44, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio or delete, and this should extend to the couple of other transmitters linked in the Nutriskwela list which lacking significant coverage and lacking meaningful content. (Please ping me if a separate bundle nomination or other discussion is opened on them.) Fails GNG. Last year a long string of broadcast transmitter AFD's all closed as delete, prompting warring over the advice and claims presented at Common outcomes for broadcast as well as the content and status of WP:BROADCAST. Both were updated to say this area is subject to GNG rules after this RFC. The debate and outcome of that RFC thoroughly smashed the stance that licensed broadcast has inherent notability based on citing mere evidence of existence/operation, or that such articles can be can be defended by WP:REFBOMBing the page with routine or frivolous cites. This article demonstrates exactly what was rejected by broad community consensus. The article currently contains two sentences, stating nothing more than existence and location. That can and should have been sourced by a single ref. Instead it has a 9 ref WP:OVERCITE, solely to pack in worthless redundant refs.
- (1)2021 NTC FM Stations" (PDF). foi.gov.ph. Routine government documentation that the site is legally entitled to exist and operate. The RFC rejected attempts to use these kinds of sources for Notability.
- (2)2019 NTC FM Stations" (PDF). foi.gov.ph. Duplicate of ref 1, merely for a different year. Worse than worthless.
- (9)2016 Annual Report psa.gov.ph. More routine government documentation of existence and operation. See refs (1) and (2). Worse than worthless.
- (4)Tuning in to Radyo Kausbawan. pitfulcrum.wixsite.com. Asserts and appears to be a student-operated news at the same university operating this radio station. Not even run on a university website, it's a Selfpubishling webhost. Aside from extremely questionable Reliability, this fails our independence criteria. It is highly likely that there are even some of the same students working both projects. Worthless for Notability.
- (6)HAPPINESS IS another winning moments for Radyo Kausbawan of Palompon Institute of Technology. pit.edu.ph. Deleted FACEBOOK post, linked from the same university operating the station. I'll go with it failing independence, and allow the reader to try to guess how many other policies guidelines or broadly-accepted-essays might apply to deleted facebook posts. Worthless for Notability.
- (3)RONDA 1 media group visits Eastern Visayas, exchanges notes with counterpart HIMSoG-8. m.samarnews.net. Two sentences with absolutely nothing beyond the fact that it exists and a broadcast book exists. Worthless for Notability. Fails as passing mention, and for routine mention of mere existence. Worthless for Notability.
- (7)45th Nutrition Month launched in Tacloban. samarnews.com. Same source as (3). Fails for the exact same reason. Two sentences, passing mention, routine mention of mere existence. Worthless for Notability.
- (5)4th Quarter 2019 Joint MPOC and MADAC Meeting. palomponleyte.gov.ph. Our 4th gov citation. This hardly rates as a fraction of one sentence passing mention. It's a raw namedrop, one among a list of several, relegated to a parenthetical. Worthless for Notability.
- (8)Welcome to Palompon HIMSOG 8 and RONDA 1. palomponleyte.gov.ph. Same source as (5). Our 5th gov citation. A single sentence passing mention. Worthless for Notability.
- Ping SBKSPP and SeanJ 2007, requesting one or both of you please help me understand which of the refs above you believe supports Notability? Either that, or perhaps reconsider your keep !vote? Alsee (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in the article are reliable enough IMV. 1 and 2 prove that the station's licensed. 3, 4, 6 and 7 are in-depth IMV. So, I believe it meets GNG. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has established processes to deal with certain procedures. These include deletion discussions and featured content. Because these processes are somewhat institutionalized, they are sometimes wrongly assumed to be majority votes. In reality, Wikipedia's policy is that each of these processes is not decided based on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus.
- Because the point of these processes is to form consensus, it is much better for editors to explain their reasoning, discuss civilly with other editors, and possibly compromise than it is to sign a one-word opinion. "Votes" without reasoning may carry little to no weight in the formation of a final consensus.[1]
- Including the Nom this is currently 3-3, however this is a clear case of Not A Headcount. We have a WP:CONLEVEL site wide RFC explicitly rejecting notability for broadcast lacking independent significant coverage, and we have ZERO sources of independent significant coverage here. We have two naked keep votes that give no indication of considering sourcing or notability criteria, and we have one blatantly bad faith keep vote frivolously claiming (3) and (7)
are in-depth IMV
when they contain no more than two substantially content-free sentences from a same source. They also disregard that (4) and (6) are a single source lacking independence and that (6) literally contains nothing but an empty deleted facebook notice. The sourcing has been examined in detail, and there has been no credible dispute here. If a full and careful examination of the sources carries no more weight than a naked unsupported claim "passes GNG" or "fails GNG" then there is no reason for anyone to invest the labor to examine the sources and post the analysis. We can just post naked WP:Votes. Or better yet, just let the WMF build us thumbs-up/thumbs-down buttons and let the software carry out the deletion.
- Alsee (talk) 21:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was waiting for this to be closed, on the assumption that a closer will take all of what you said into account, and stating this would not have been necessary. But I certainly agree. It is quite obvious that on the weight of the arguments, this is a clear redirect. MB 23:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nutriskwela Community Radio. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV per the source analysis by Alsee. I would further point to this 2021 RfC which specifically outlined the need for a higher level of sourcing to prove SIGCOV for radio stations than the type of sources being used here.4meter4 (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:48, 7 October 2022 (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.