Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC Riverina

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a consensus here that most, if not all, of these are notable and there is certainly no way I as closer can determine any particular articles which should be merged (I see no support for deletion). If people think a particular article should be merged then they can start a discussion elsewhere, but consensus here is that a bulk merge of all the articles is not required. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ABC Riverina

[edit]
ABC Riverina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Merge all, with any recoverable information pushed to List of ABC radio stations, and all turned into redirects. All but three (1,2,3) of these stations contain either no references (example), or a single primary source reference to ABC online (example). Of the three that don't, they each contain a single reference. Many contain show schedules (example), violating WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. There's just not enough verifiable content to sustain these articles as anything other than stubs or even microstubs. The list article is considerably more appropriate, and should be fleshed out with what information can be recovered. Any station developed well enough to spin off can be recreated at a later date. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because in effect, all of them will be deleted. There's not much to salvage. Plus, many AfDs result in merges. As the instructions note, "Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD". Attempting to merge an entire group of articles like this is very likely to be contested. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem is merging would lose the history (depending on how it is done [I've seen articles deleted then redirected, making it impossible to know what existed]). One thing that has popped up in past AfD's is that stations that have been broadcasting for sometime (not 20 or 40 years) have been deemed notable or due to the fact they have a license to broadcast. Bidgee (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Although there's not a set policy, the usual outcome on articles about FCC licensed radio stations in the United States is that they are kept, per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, although very low power stations (100 watt) are not considered notable. By analogy, a radio station authorized by Australian Communications and Media Authority or the Australian Broadcasting Authority would be kept. There's no reason offered for deleting all of the items on the list as a group (i.e., an assumption that all radio stations are inherently non-notable, or perhaps that affiliates of Australia's version of NPR should be referred to in one list), and it appears that the idea is to start a merger discussion, which can be done without coming here. Just looking at some of these, such as 612 ABC Brisbane, which broadcasts at 50,000 watts, they would generally pass. Mandsford 02:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all OK, some (I'm not sure which) could probably go, but this is not just a heap of stations created by a major network, with all content distributed from that central point. My pet station from your target list is 3LO in Melbourne, which, as its redirect will tell you, was forced by those dictatorial, uninformed network bosses in Sydney to change its name to 774 ABC Melbourne. And they were probably just trying to please some Sydney based politician. You see, my deliberately over-the top language will show you that you're touching on sensitive public ownership here. (The moral kind.) 3LO still delivers content entirely different from its brother (master?) station in Sydney (rates better too), and often provides content to the whole of Victoria. And before it became an ABC station it actually had a life as a private commercial operation, so it would be quite wrong to just stick it under an ABC heading. More content could easily be added (but I haven't done it yet), and it's obvious that a merger would cause the loss of some content. This is a proposal designed to reduce what is in Wikipedia, rather than enhance it. If it's an issue, I have no problem with the program guide disappearing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is being a stub justification for deletion? To my mind tagging these articles with something like Template:Refimprove would have been more productive. Hack (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all except those that have been expanded to more than a sub-stub, supported by independent references - without prejudice to splitting out sections in the future as they are expanded. I agree with the arguments that all these radio stations are notable in their own right and not mere re-broadcasters of networked content and I would strongly oppose deleting them but at this stage the vast majority of them do not have sufficient sourced content to support an article on their own. My gut reaction is to keep them all as stand alone articles but I don't think I can rationally justify it at this stage. It shouldn't take much to expand stations like 3LO and 4QR to a size suitable for standing alone. ABC Wide Bay may take a little longer. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I just had a look for sources for my local, 720 ABC Perth, and found
    • "6WF". Bulletin of the Kalamunda and Districts Historical Society (August/September 1999): 3–5. 1999. [History of 6WF on its 75th anniversary]
    • Ciallella, Rebecca Michelle (1991). The shaping of a voice: the early years of 6WF (Honours thesis). Murdoch University.
    • Several contemporary accounts of its establishment and opening in the 1920s in issues of Western Wireless.
In my view these sources suffice to establish notability. The burden is on the nominator to show which of the others aren't just as notable. Hesperian 04:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh no, it's not. The burden is on editors to improve articles by adding citations and removing unreferenced material. At the time of the opening of this AfD, only three of the 51 articles here had non-primary sources. There's no objection by me or anyone else to recreation of independent articles when their material in the list becomes sufficient to actually sustain an article. As it, virtually all of the material on these articles is uncited. Ok, fine, they're notable. Improve the articles then. It shouldn't be hard. But many of these articles have existed for years without improvement. Now there's a flashlight on them. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, the default here is to keep, nominators have to prove the article should be deleted. Remember we are building an encyclopedia, not destroying by removing a page that is not getting better. Even a minimal stub in this list is better than many entries in other encyclopedias, and since most are notable because of having their own transmitter studio and programming in the past there will be plenty of references in older newspapers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When looking for supporting references I find that it exists for all the stations I search out, including New Zealand newspaper references as well as local newspapers. This shows that all the early ones at least are notable. And it looks as if they should all be kept as separate articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is not a deletion discussion; it is clearly a merge proposal as evidenced by the nominator's rationale and should have been the subject of a merge discussion, not listing at AfD. As per WP:KEEP, the nominator has failed to advance an argument for deletion and has only proposed a non-deletion action i.e. merging. No one other than the nominator has recommended that the pages be deleted so this is clearly a speedy keep and should be closed as such. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate articles for at least some, eg the major capital city stations such as 720 ABC Perth. (My personal bias: I'm from Perth and big fan of the ABC, both radio and TV.) Mitch Ames (talk)

Whoa there... I'll take it upon myself to make some improvements to 774 ABC Melbourne (anyone else is welcome to help too, of course), but I would like a target standard to aim for. Where can I look to see examples of or guidelines on what a great radio station page should look like? HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (radio), while not being a local station, seems to be about the best radio station article I've seen. Hack (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of some local station articles that are good are WWPR-FM or KHTY. Generally, the content beyond the information box (which has info about location on the radio dial, wattage, format, geographic location as listed on the license, areas served) would be history and programming, and if the station has a website, a link to that. I'm glad that HiLo48 confirmed that these stations aren't simply a transmitter of network programs. Mandsford 13:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in most cases expandable articles (regional radio and tv of the abc have 'identities' of their own and are almost all expandable) - of all the suggestions above - Hack's - ref improve - is one very obvious positive move - the nominator (as pointed out above) is obviously not Australian - as Australian regional rivalries would be a good indicator as to why regional tv and radio stations are specifically regional identity sustainers - and as a consequence inherently notable by the issues they carry in programming and style - also Mansfords (and others) response is a good indicator the wrong 'device' (Afd) has been applied here - I would think that
  1. a list of them all
  2. a category to contain them
  3. separate articles each are valid for all 'real' regional stations - if there any repeaters where no studios exist - might be a valid reason to merge into a list, but certainly not deletion SatuSuro 14:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all with redirects Ignoring the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, the point is here is not that these stations aren't worth mention in WP, but that they yet don't show enough info to validate an individual article for each. There may be a few that are very notable, they can have it but that needs to be shown and developed, which the above discussion to this point has yet to show. We can , however, justify a list of these stations and brief statements from source to explain a bit about each station, and provide redirects so that, say searching "ABC Riverina" still takes you to the right place. As a station is found notable for its own article, it can then be broken out to its own article. But right now all that is there is the list of affiliate stations of ABC, nothing more, nothing less. A list is the best answer for these. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All of these have good sources and are major radio stations in their respective regions. Merging these useful articles into a list is completely useless (any readers know the name of the station and where it's from; the entire point of them looking it up on Wikipedia is that they want more information). Moreover, merging would destroy the history and make their expansion a nightmare. Rebecca (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of these have good sources?!?!?! All but a small handful have no secondary sources at all. Some have no sources whatsoever, even primary sources. Merging them wouldn't eliminate the salvageable content, and the redirects would still allow for users to search for the station name. Turning them into redirects would not destroy the history. I'm sorry, but I fail to see anything in your keep that succesfully argues in favor of retention of the articles. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep those with sufficient sources to demonstrate standalone notability. Merge the rest into an appropriate list or lists. Eg, "List of ABC radio stations", or "List of radio stations in Australia"., keeping all content such as first air date, operator, frequency, broadcast power, broadcast area, etc. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looky here... OK, I invite eyes to 774 ABC Melbourne. I have removed the program guide, tidied up a lot, and added references. If anyone dares to suggest that the article is still appropriate for deletion, I would would argue that they have rocks in their head. Suggestions, corrections and new contributions are, as always, totally welcome. HiLo48 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now Large numbers of independent reliable sources should be available for most, if not all, of these stations so a bulk merge nomination like this isn't appropriate. I'd suggest evaluating these article on a case by case basis, possibly via a discussion at WP:AWNB (or another appropriate forum) Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Do you sincerely doubt any of these exist? Isn't there some government website listing all radio stations in the country are at. Are radio stations, television stations, magazines, and newspapers, only notable if they mention each other? Dream Focus 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not snowing in Australia, where it's summer, but it should be here. Unfortunately, even more rain showers to add to the miseries in Queensland and NSW. Mandsford 17:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to the guideline/policy that says government licensed broadcast radio stations get a free pass to exist for years without secondary sources, virtually no content, and no claims of notability other than their mere existence? Something existing doesn't make it worthy of its own article here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep (or withdraw AfD) for this set of related pages in its current form — but with the understanding that a new AfD can be opened with the ones (if any) that may be truly non-notable stations that have never had significant local programming of their own and could be merged up into subtopics of nearby major stations or ABC Local Radio or Radio National. --Closeapple (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the "usual outcomes" of broadcast AfDs in other countries: in the U.S., for example, the vast majority of stations have a history of local management and programming, and they almost always survive AfD as notable; but there are certain groups of noncommercial stations that are almost totally rebroadcasters in practice (even though many of them are licensed as fully autonomous full-power stations), and those stations' articles are usually merged up into the "flagship" station or network feeding them. I am not as familiar with Australian broadcasting, but: The determining factor, I think, would be which ABC stations really had the ability to create their own programs and have their own history and coverage from other reliable sources, other than simply existing and doing "local" drop-in reports required across all ABC stations without ever having done anything else. It seems from the comments above that both kinds of stations are mixed into this same AfD. --Closeapple (talk) 05:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I strongly recommend that you withdraw this AFD as it will ultimatley result in a keep closure. If you have an issue with the articles, I'd suggest doing them seperatley or taking this to another discussion for merger or redirects. This is obviously not going to close as a delete, and I'm half tempted myself to close this as a snow keep. Dusti*poke* 06:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all above. I concur that large numbers of independent reliable sources are likely to be available for most, if not all. A number of the articles already have been expanded and referenced justifying their retention. I'd strongly suggest that the nominator withdraw this AFD and that an evaluation of each article be undertaken on a case by case basis. Dan arndt (talk) 07:37, 12 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ABC_Riverina&oldid=1137528633"