| Revision as of 10:39, 22 December 2006 editDHowell (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,674 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:05, 22 December 2006 edit undoAlan.ca (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,374 edits →[]: not a vote, a debate, See Wp:afd#How to discuss an AfD.2FWikietiquette for clarificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ::::::Agreed. I've been putting together secondary sources to complete the Class A stations in the western US, but there have been several stations for which I can find nothing else but the FCC info. I will not author those articles for just that reason. However, television stations often get third-party mention as part of a larger article. See, for example, , an article which makes mention of KPDF in a couple of paragraphs, but the article is not about the station itself. The same is true for , which devotes the last few paragraphs to KPDF and ]. You'll not likely find more than this kind of reference. The question is: is it enough coverage to satisfy the "non-triviality" part of the ]? I contend that it is, due to the reasons I stated in my previous response. However, I would judge the one-sentence reference to KPDF in as trivial, and would not cite it. Note — I am adding the first two references to the KPDF-CA article, as external links now, but will refine the article later. ] 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | ::::::Agreed. I've been putting together secondary sources to complete the Class A stations in the western US, but there have been several stations for which I can find nothing else but the FCC info. I will not author those articles for just that reason. However, television stations often get third-party mention as part of a larger article. See, for example, , an article which makes mention of KPDF in a couple of paragraphs, but the article is not about the station itself. The same is true for , which devotes the last few paragraphs to KPDF and ]. You'll not likely find more than this kind of reference. The question is: is it enough coverage to satisfy the "non-triviality" part of the ]? I contend that it is, due to the reasons I stated in my previous response. However, I would judge the one-sentence reference to KPDF in as trivial, and would not cite it. Note — I am adding the first two references to the KPDF-CA article, as external links now, but will refine the article later. ] 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''', per ] ] 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''', per ] ] 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *Please be aware than an AfD is not a vote, but a debate. Stating ''per user'' or ''per nom'' serves the process no benefit. See ] for clarification. ] 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:05, 22 December 2006
KPDF-CA
A low powered station, not notable. Lacks independent sourced information wp:v#Burden_of_evidence. If it contains no sources, the information is Original Research. What encyclopedic value does it contribute? Alan.ca 06:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Much of the information in the article can be verified through the link to the Federal Communications Commission. --Eastmain 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent source, please include it in the article. I wonder if you could find an independent source supporting notability. Alan.ca 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's already in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Article already contains a link to the FCC database entry on KPDF-CA here, which verifies most of the information in this article. The history section appears encyclopedic in tone and contains information someone who was looking up info on the station might find useful. I don't find any evidence of advertising, blatant or otherwise. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- What information would we find useful in this article that is not in the fcc link? Alan.ca 07:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If someone could please answer how this article meets WP:CORP#Criteria for companies and corporations I may be able to withdraw the nomination. Alan.ca 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- A Spanish-language Class-A TV station which, as it states in the article, is seen both over the air and on cable systems, and which serves the 5th-largest city in the U.S., which is 34% Hispanic, seems notable to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. I will be adding references to the article. Low-power stations are not automatically non-notable. This is especially true for Class A stations, which have met more stringent criteria in order to have primary station rights during the DTV conversion. dhett 07:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to imply that a low powered station cannot be notable, but given that they have limited broadcast range, it would seem more likely. When you refer to citations to come, are you intending to meet the WP:CORP guideline? Alan.ca 07:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- In Phoenix, a Class A station with a 40-mi signal radius, reaches nearly the same number of households as a full-service, full-power station with an 80-mi signal radius. And yes, I do intend to meet the WP:CORP guideline, although I question its relevance to a television station. Since reports by public agencies are part of the criteria for notability, each FCC application and notice concerning the station contributes to that station's notability. dhett 07:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- By that definition every publically traded company would be eligible as well as they are all registered with the SEC. Alan.ca 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Contributes to notability, not creates it. I still debate how applicable WP:CORP is to television stations, and for that matter, to all print and broadcast media outlets. They generally do not provide in-depth coverage of their competitors. You may find many passing references, but the only time a media outlet gets attention from other media is when one does something extraordinary, such as changing affiliations, or something controversial. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find anything significant written about CIII-TV — it's a full-power station (actually, network of stations) but unless they're writing about themselves, or Global Television Network is writing about them, or the CRTC has business with them, you don't hear much about them. On the other hand, because of Jan Pachul's antics with the CRTC, you might find several independent articles about Star Ray TV. Which is the more notable station? I submit it's CIII-TV. dhett 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts there. You may want to start a discussion on one of the policy or guideline talk pages. According to policy wp:v, no third party sources, no article, how else do we verify the statements? If it's just a simple reprint of FCC info, why do we need an article? Alan.ca 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've been putting together secondary sources to complete the Class A stations in the western US, but there have been several stations for which I can find nothing else but the FCC info. I will not author those articles for just that reason. However, television stations often get third-party mention as part of a larger article. See, for example, World staying tuned to Mexican telenovelas, an article which makes mention of KPDF in a couple of paragraphs, but the article is not about the station itself. The same is true for Spanish-language TV outlets boost power, viewers, which devotes the last few paragraphs to KPDF and Azteca America. You'll not likely find more than this kind of reference. The question is: is it enough coverage to satisfy the "non-triviality" part of the notability guideline? I contend that it is, due to the reasons I stated in my previous response. However, I would judge the one-sentence reference to KPDF in MediaWeek Market Profile: Phoenix as trivial, and would not cite it. Note — I am adding the first two references to the KPDF-CA article, as external links now, but will refine the article later. dhett 10:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts there. You may want to start a discussion on one of the policy or guideline talk pages. According to policy wp:v, no third party sources, no article, how else do we verify the statements? If it's just a simple reprint of FCC info, why do we need an article? Alan.ca 09:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Contributes to notability, not creates it. I still debate how applicable WP:CORP is to television stations, and for that matter, to all print and broadcast media outlets. They generally do not provide in-depth coverage of their competitors. You may find many passing references, but the only time a media outlet gets attention from other media is when one does something extraordinary, such as changing affiliations, or something controversial. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find anything significant written about CIII-TV — it's a full-power station (actually, network of stations) but unless they're writing about themselves, or Global Television Network is writing about them, or the CRTC has business with them, you don't hear much about them. On the other hand, because of Jan Pachul's antics with the CRTC, you might find several independent articles about Star Ray TV. Which is the more notable station? I submit it's CIII-TV. dhett 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- By that definition every publically traded company would be eligible as well as they are all registered with the SEC. Alan.ca 08:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- In Phoenix, a Class A station with a 40-mi signal radius, reaches nearly the same number of households as a full-service, full-power station with an 80-mi signal radius. And yes, I do intend to meet the WP:CORP guideline, although I question its relevance to a television station. Since reports by public agencies are part of the criteria for notability, each FCC application and notice concerning the station contributes to that station's notability. dhett 07:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per User:dhett DHowell 10:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please be aware than an AfD is not a vote, but a debate. Stating per user or per nom serves the process no benefit. See Wp:afd#How to discuss an AfD.2FWikietiquette for clarification. Alan.ca 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)