WDUQ-LP: Fails WP:GNG .  Unlikely to be much potential for improvement given it is licensed to a "city" of 1000 people.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Companies , United States of America ,  and West Virginia .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 05:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] * Speedy Keep : Page has 10 references.   10.   While the station is licensed to a city of 1,269 (regardless of the nominator's insinuation with the quotations), it serves a city (ie: Wheeling) of 27,062 and a metro area of 139,513.   It should be noted that this is at least the 20th PROD or AfD by this user of radio station articles within hundreds of PRODs and AfDs by this user.   All with virtually zero attempt to improve the articles by the user.   User is nom'ing for deletion without constructively contributing to the project.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's simply a baseless attack.  I routinely improve new pages at NPP as my edit history shows.  I also remove PROD tags from notable articles.  The vast majority of articles I have taken to AfD have been deleted.  Frankly I think you're confused as to what this project is.  It's an encyclopedia of notable topics, with well-sourced articles.  It's not a webhost.  It's not a social media site.  Now I will examine the 10 sources you refer to at the article: Source 1 : A database from Nielsen Audio , simply says "No Winter 2014 data found for WDUQ-FM."  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 2 : Federal Communications Commission (FCC) database, a primary source.  Source says "Access denied."  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 3 : Appears to be a user-generated FCC database search of a construction application.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 4 : Another FCC database entry, simply confirming their call sign.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 5 : Another user generated search from FCC database.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 6 : Another user generated search from FCC database.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 7 : Another user generated search from FCC database.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 8 : Another user generated search from FCC database.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 9 : Invalid URL, appears to be a dictionary entry.  Certainly not reliable secondary source.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Source 10 : Appears to be a blogpost, now dead.  Useful for establishing notability?  N Simply having a wall of irrelevant and useless sources doesn't make a topic notable.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 04:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm sorry you feel that way, but it wasn't an attack, just merely pointing out the obvious.   I haven't seen you update a single radio station page, but that's neither here nor there.  All FCC sources are considered reliable per WP:RS/P .   Arbitron updates with the season/year every three months.   So change the WI14 to either WI23 or SP24 and you get current information.   Source #2 works fine for me.   It might be "Access Denied" for those outside of the US.   A good alternative (or secondary) is this from FCCData .   Source 9 was easily corrected here and correctly sources the sentence "The WDUQ callsign was chosen by owners Kol Ami Havurah because the letters "DUQ" is a form of the Hebrew root דוח or "report"."  Source 10, again easily fixed here .  I found those within a few minutes of searching.   I'm not "confused" on what Wikipedia is.   I've been here for 18 years, have numerous articles to my name, including GAs and FAs.   I have made my ! vote and responded to your query.   As such, this will be all I have to say on this matter.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm blown away by your argument, especially as you are, as you say, an experienced editor.  I'm not suggesting FCC database entries are "unreliable" - I'm simply saying they are primary sources.  They do not establish notability.  WP:GNG is really clear: "Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."  Every single radio station in the United States, all 15,377 of them , will have database entries from the FCC.  There's at least 15,000 stations in the European Union, too.  Are they all notable if they have government database entries?  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have said my piece and I will offer no further comments on this subject.   Thank you.  - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of radio stations in West Virginia : Our standards have considerably tightened since 2006, when the inclusion standards in this topic area pretty much amounted in practice to "licensed stations are generally notable".  Whether or not that was ever the correct standard is another matter, but in 2024 we go by the GNG , which requires significant coverage in independent sources (and I don't think this is the only topic area where articles based primarily or solely on database entries are being culled).  While by no means absolute, LPFMs, as with (but probably moreso than) newer stations in general, tend to be less likely to be able to truly meet the GNG.  Unless more sourcing surfaces, an {{ R to list entry }} is probably all that's merited here.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  07:00, 28 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect