Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KTMU

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. Article has been improved since discussion was opened Firsfron of Ronchester 20:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KTMU

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BCAST, does not meet any criteria. The station is one year old so does not have much of a legacy. No reliable secondary sources on google about coverage, presenters or notability on google. Wikishagnik (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As creator of the page being nominated for deletion, I would support merging the content and redirecting the page to KTGS, which is the flagship station of the network which KTMU airs the programming of. Eventually, I would favor creating a separate network article, and redirecting the articles of all affiliates which never aired their own independent content to this article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by this statement - Eventually, I would favor creating a separate network article, and redirecting the articles of all affiliates which never aired their own independent content to this article. Are you talking about creating a seperate article for KTGS network? Is there anything notable about the network? OR are you suggesting a merge and redirect?-Wikishagnik (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to "The Gospel Station Network", which is a network of 12 full power stations and 9 translators. All of the affiliates currently have articles, and I would support redirecting all full time affiliates to an article about the network, upon such an article's creation, provided that these affiliates were never independent of the network. The network is not called the KTGS network, but that station is the network's flagship station. In the absence of an article for "The Gospel Station Network", I would support a merge and redirect to KTGS.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: If that's your intent I would recommend re-titling the article Gospel Station Network instead of using the call letters of one of its stations. Use redirects for the call letters. Faustus37 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tdl1060 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; The relevant content from KTMU's article has been added to KTGS's article, preparing KTMU's article to be redirected to KTGS, should consensus favor such an action. --Tdl1060 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 08:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after I have improved and expanded the article with secondary and third-party sources to improve verifiability and notability. The station was launched by one entity and is in the process of being sold to another that owns KTGS but there's no guarantee than the sale will consummate. - Dravecky (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per Dravecky and per WP:BROADCAST and numerous discussions and AfDs, consensus is that all radio stations are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

All? There have been a number of Internet radio stations which have fallen by the wayside at AFD - I think consensus is that most of the "larger" radio stations with broadcast licenses are notable where notability has been established against one of the criteria listed at WP:BCAST. But to say that all radio stations are considered notable is probably not accurate. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said radio stations, not internet stations. I consider a radio station a station that was heard on the radio dial (AM, FM, LP), not something that can be heard exclusively online. If it was once on-the-air, then that gets into a different area (KNAC and WOXY would be good examples of that). But stations that have been heard exclusively online over their lifetimes, then those are not (and never have been) radio stations in my opinion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured that's probably what you were getting at, but I still don't think all "on the dial" stations could be presumed to be notable anyway. WP:BCAST probably does need updating, though. We're always going to have issues given how easily some small stations can (or have historically been able to) get licences and be "heard on the radio dial". There are large (especially on-campus) internet radio stations, some of which might conceivably pass WP:CORPDEPTH. At the same time, there are small, niche stations that are licensed and "on the dial" which couldn't possibly come close to being considered notable. I can think of a few in my area in both categories. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfDs in the past have brought into the other part of the consensus that tiny-market stations are also notable. Even tiny-market stations can be historical and alot of them are quite notable. The only problem we run into is these days not many papers or TV stations will talk about their competition (unless something bad happens). In the past, I would see an article in the local paper about one of the local radio stations about once a month. I haven't seen on in a few years now. So, we run into that problem when updating the pages is the sources just aren't there to be had. But we do have rules as to what is notable and what isn't. A K-LOVE affiliate, for example, isn't notable with a few rare exceptions (like WLTK and WGCK-FM as they are locally owned and have local programming along with K-LOVE programming). Stations that carry local programming, local DJs (even stations that run a satellite format have local programming/DJs) are considered notable. I agree that WP:BROADCAST needs updated, but I believe all stations (that aren't fully simulcasting a network like K-LOVE or CSN) are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough (and well explained). I suppose some of my interpretation might be "geocentric" and provided from an Australian point of view. Here there are myriad tiny (licenced) radio stations, some in cases where there are a number of "stations" running out of the same building. They have their own advertising, programming, DJs, etc but they are run by small community organisations (mostly volunteers) and have maybe a few hundred to a few thousand listeners. In Australia there is a (slow) push to "reclaim" some of the frequencies currently used by amateurs and community organisations so they can be sold to the larger media organisations. As a result, a number of those community radio stations are moving online. So I think there is inherently a flaw in suggesting that a station which was once "analog" but is now "digital" (if you understand my distinction) is notable because it was once analog. So too, I find a flaw in the suggestion that any 5-person community group with an aerial and a record player (as long as they have the aerial) is notable. I'll admit I genuinely don't know as much about goings-on in the US but is it so heavily restricted there that the above Australian examples do not have US equivalents? If not (and all US stations are large, licenced and inherently notable) then we need to do some work on WP:BCAST. If they do, how can those tiny backyard operations possible be considered notable? Stalwart111 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not mistaken, I think WP:BROADCAST was primarily written for American and Canadian stations, even though it shouldn't be. Here in the US, we have what are called "low-power FM stations" and they typically cover just the town they are licensed to. By law, a large amount of their programming must be locally-produced. I am not sure if they can even have commericals, but they can have underwritters (people who sponsor airtime for an hour or two). They can play music, some play widely-known bands and some play a mix of widely-known and lesser-known bands, while some play just local and regional bands. But all LPFM stations in the US must be locally-owned and operated, typically by a church, a community organization, sometimes even the town they are located in, or a resident and can not be owned by a major corporation (like CBS Radio or Clear Channel Communications). I think Canada has something similar, but don't quote me on that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see that's totally different to us. We have the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia who provide simulcast (nationwide) "community" content that any community radio station can broadcast. You could literally whack up an aerial and start pumping out their stuff. Anyone (well, maybe not anyone) here could get (before the recent restrictions) a frequency and originally they didn't cost very much. Everyone - commercial, non-commercial, community - is in the same bag, covered by the same rules and on the same dial. ~~So, to be clear (and now with US-centric glasses on), this one (KTMU) is not one of the LPFM stations?~~ (irrelevant now). Stalwart111 (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Neutral (see above collapsed discussion) - there are some references attached to the article but most are "directory" style entries provided for all radio stations. I don't think one minor mention in a newspaper could be considered significant coverage. As per WP:BCAST, the station may be presumed to be notable if notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming, but each would still need to be verified by reliable sources. None of the sources provided establish any of these and the article doesn't assert notability against any of these criteria. Notability can also be separately established if the company itself meets WP:CORPDEPTH but I wouldn't suggest any of the sources allow for that either. On balance, I don't think there is enough there to establish notability. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Federal Communications Commission is considered a reliable source, as it is a US Government organization. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, not questioning its reliability as a source. My concern was that the FCC sources don't seem to provide any information about a "large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming" so as to meet the criteria of WP:BCAST. They provide technical facts and information about the licence and station. Useful, but "routine" as far as WP:N is concerned (in my opinion). So if we want to demonstrate notability against any of those criteria it would need to be done with (other) reliable sources. The FCC sources are good, reliable sources but they don't verify any of the information we would seem to need for the subject to meet the criteria at WP:BCAST. If they did (by providing listener numbers, for example) then this whole thing would be beyond doubt. Do they do so? Or do they ever vet or review listener numbers? If there's another FCC link that covers any aspect of the WP:BCAST criteria then everything else is really a moot point, as far as I'm concerned. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the US, only commerical stations pay for ratings via Arbitron and these days only certain number of those commerical stations actually pay for ratings, so you don't get an accurate picture. We have a couple stations in my area that have a good many listeners, but they got a 0.0 in the last ratings book because they didn't pay Arbitron. :( So, ratings, at the moment, aren't a good way to determine listenership of a station. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well that just makes a discussion about WP:BCAST pointless if the criteria are so out of date and so geo-centric as to be irrelevant or fundamentally flawed. Have changed my comment above to "neutral" and will post a note on this discussion's talk page (and on yours). Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep or Redirect: KTMU does not appear to be a translator station. Given that it's part of the Gospel Station Network, which appears to have a pretty strong presence in Oklahoma and the immediate surrounding area, it clearly passes WP:BCAST in that sense. If KTMU broadcasts its own programming in addition to GSN, then this is a clear pass of WP:BCAST of its own volition. If not, I'd suggest a new article for the Gospel Station Network and redirects for its various call letters. GSN I think should have its own article in any event. Faustus37 (talk) 02:20, 1 November 2012 (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.