Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WLUZ

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 List of radio stations in U.S. Territories#Puerto Rico. Indeed per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES, no source-based argument has been made to keep a dedicated article. czar 03:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WLUZ[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

As far as I can see, this article has never been sourced. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a directory. Seems to meet WP:DEL6 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep radio stations licensed with the FCC and broadcasting original content are considered notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is based in a now deprecated policy following a recent RFC ruling (see comments below). It's no longer considered a valid argument.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 10-lb. Hammer. Stereorock (talk) 02:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. Nate • (chatter) 04:16, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article fails WP:SIGCOV which is first and foremost for an article to remain on Wikipedia, it must be sourced.The fact they are notable, doesn't preclude from needing referencing. It is currently unreferenced, so it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is going to be tough to come by, especially historically, simply because of being in Puerto Rico — finding old newspapers here is among the most difficult tasks, and I say that having written in this topic area in every US state and territory except PR. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then if sourcing is non-existant then that is the very definition of non-notable. Simply stating it is notable and its an automatic keep because of a few words in random policy, that completely bypasses the whole notability criteria for Wikipedia, breaks the WP Terms of Use and 5 pillars, as though they don't exist in 2022 is unacceptable. It currently fails WP:SIGCOV. It will draftified if no sources are found, and shrunk to a single line article with no content. scope_creep^Talk 20:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is an essay and has no standing on Afd to prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 20:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a reference on the article, right at the very bottom which I never saw. scope_creep^Talk 21:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've asked a question at the Village Pump-policy to determine if the WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is policy and to determine exactly how it applies in this situation. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused by those who are pointing to WP:BCASTOUTCOMES to support keeping this article… BCASTOUTCOMES actually calls for deletion when there is no significant coverage. Blueboar (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar, your confusion is understandable. There was a recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/Archive 2#Status which led to the changing of the text/policy at WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. The users above are citing an older version of that policy which has been recently deprecated (a fact they probably were not aware of). The new language is very different, and no longer supports the argument made above. BCASTOUTCOMES used to support all radio stations with original programming regardless of sourcing. It no longer does.4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_radio_stations_in_U.S._Territories#Puerto_Rico, unless someone can show significant coverage, or if there is a policy (or essay/summary; whatever you want to call it) affirming what 10lb said (can't see anything in Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines). Per, WP:BCASTOUTCOMES "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources". — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_radio_stations_in_U.S._Territories#Puerto_Rico per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. That policy currently recommends a redirect in a case like this. Some reviewers may not have actually read BCASTOUTCOMES recently because it was changed after this RFC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/Archive 2#Status. The language which used to support the argument made by TenPoundHammer at BCASTOUTCOMES is now deprecated following that RFC, and has been removed. Pinging Stereorock, Mrschimpf, Sammi Brie, & TenPoundHammer. You all may want to reconsider your position in light of the fact that BCASTOUTCOMES has changed significantly and no longer supports the rationale made here in the keep arguments.4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 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.