Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CKBJ-FM

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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CKBJ-FM

[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)

Unreferenced article about an unlicensed low-power radio station. One of the core criteria that a radio station has to pass to be considered "inherently" notable per WP:BCAST is that it has a license from the appropriate regulatory authority -- which this does not have, as it operates under the Canadian equivalent of Part 15 rules. The CRTC's website, which is searchable contrary to the claims of some people, records no licensing decisions pertaining to this station at all, and even Industry Canada's current list of available, which is to say unassigned, call signs, lists "CKBJ" on it (which means that by definition, no licensed radio station in Canada has that call sign at all.) So the only other way it can be notable enough for a Wikipedia article is if it can show a volume of reliable source coverage that would be sufficient to get it over WP:GNG — but this has literally no reliable source coverage that I can find, and radio stations are not exempted from having to have sources just because they have self-published websites. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Keep: Looks licensed to me per the standard REC link on each Canadian page (since CRTC doesn't have a searchable site like the FCC). REC doesn't have unlicensed stations on there. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:49 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

Discussion unrelated to AfD

Firstly, I have explained to you before: the CRTC site most certainly is searchable — you absolutely can find CRTC decisions relating to a station by searching for its call sign, the name of its owner or the name of the city where it operates. Depending on what type of information you're looking for, however, searching the CRTC site may not always be relevant — you can't search the CRTC site to document a station changing its call sign or branding or format, for example, because the CRTC doesn't have anything to do with that kind of stuff. But you most certainly can search the CRTC site to find out if a radio station has a CRTC license or not, because you will find licensing decisions that way, and you most certainly can search the CRTC site to find information about ownership and technical details and cities of license and regulatory violations and other information that falls under the CRTC's purview. But this station generates zero CRTC documents regardless of whether I search for "CKBJ-FM", "Town Radio", "Eastman Media" or "Beausejour, Manitoba", and it generates no entry in Spectrum Direct either — and if you're trying to determine whether a Canadian radio station has a license or not, both the CRTC and Spectrum Direct are higher authorities than Recnet. Recnet most certainly does include entries for unlicensed Canadian low-power and VF stations, where known — but the question of whether a station has a CRTC license or not is answered by the CRTC, not by Recnet.

Secondly, even the Canadian Communications Foundation directory link in the ELs claims only that the station launched under "special temporary authority" provisions, and documents no evidence of a permanent CRTC license either. If it had ever been given a CRTC license, however, that would have been documented in the CCF entry.

Thirdly, even a station with a license would still have to be able to show some evidence of reliable source coverage about it before it actually got the notability pass. As it stands, I can find literally no proof whatsoever that this isn't just an internet radio stream that continues to call itself a radio station strictly for branding purposes: no CRTC decisions pertaining to it, no Spectrum Direct record of any transmitter on this frequency anywhere within 100 kilometers of Beausejour let alone in Beausejour itself, no media coverage about it, nothing.

Fourthly, keep in mind that there's a station on 93.7 (CJNU-FM) in Winnipeg, so there's no way that the CRTC would ever license a first-adjacent station in Beausejour.

I know very much what I'm talking about when it comes to Canadian media, and I know exactly how to determine whether a Canadian radio station has a license or not. Yes, Canadian broadcast regulation works differently than US broadcast regulation does — not everything the FCC does is under the CRTC's purview, so it's not always relevant to search the CRTC website for some types of information about radio or television stations, but the CRTC site most certainly is searchable: you just have to understand what it is and isn't useful to search the CRTC site for. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not searchable like the FCC site. The FCC site is far more searchable than the CRTC's site is. So, that aside, under NMEDIA, this would be considered like a US LPFM due to it's size of coverage and it's wattage. LPFM's are covered by NMEDIA. That said, REC shows it does have a license and regardless of what CRTC says, that's good enough for me and REC is considered a reliable source. I stand by my Speedy Keep regardless of what it can or can not be searched for online. Some LPFMs don't have secondary media coverage, but have pages. FCC links are good enough, as is the CRTC link and the REC link in this case. Would I like it every radio station page had secondary sources from media outlets like, say WINC (AM)? Absolutely! But we can't AfD the ones that don't. Else it's gonna get really bare around here when it comes to radio station pages. My Keep stands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:43 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

Five references added, page updated with infobox and a short history with sources, plus a logo. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:33 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

Zero of which are reliable or notability-supporting sources, as four of the five are directory entries and the fifth is the company's own self-published website about itself, and zero of which constitute proof that the station has a CRTC license. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant that the CRTC's search results don't generate an URL that we can easily convert into an AMQ or FMQ style template the way the FCC's search results do, but the CRTC's site is still not even remotely difficult or unreliable to search. If you type a radio station's call sign into the search box on the CRTC site, you most certainly will find every CRTC decision that's ever been issued pertaining to that station — including definitively incontrovertible evidence of whether it has a CRTC license or not: a station that has a CRTC license will always, by definition, have search results pertaining to the issuance and/or renewals of its license. If you type the name of a radio station's owner into the search box on the CRTC site, you most certainly will find every CRTC document that has ever had that person's or company's name in it. If you type the name of a city into the search box on the CRTC site, you most certainly will find every CRTC decision that's ever pertained to broadcasting in that city. The fact that we can't autogenerate a template to turn the search results into an external link on Wikipedia articles does not mean the site is unsearchable, or even "difficult" to search — the site is very easily searchable. How the hell else do you think we find the CRTC documents that we regularly cite in other articles, if not "we searched for them on the CRTC website"?

But again, no matter what search term I use, I can find no evidence of any CRTC decisions pertaining to this station at all. Not if I search for its call sign, not if I search for its brand name, not if I search for its owners, not even if I do a generic search for every CRTC decision that's ever pertained to Beausejour: there is simply no evidence of a CRTC license here at all.

You can stand by your position all you like. But it does not change the fact that you're incorrect about the CRTC website's searchability, and it does not change the fact that the CRTC is the final authority on whether a station has a CRTC license or not.

If no licensing decision can be found on the CRTC's website, that is The Last and Final Word on the matter. Recnet is not a higher authority than the CRTC on this matter; the lack of a CRTC license overrules the existence of a Recnet directory entry, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to stop you now. REC Networks is used across the project, specifically on all Canadian radio station pages. The Canadian Communications Foundation is a division of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. Manitoba Music is a division of Manitoba Film and Music itself a division of the Government of Manitoba.

So, please tell me again how these organizations and sources are "zero...reliable or notable". YOU and you only are trying to decide what is or isn't a reliable source, that isn't that discussion. Government sources are inherently notable, REC Networks has been considered inherently notable, and the Canadian Communications Foundation has been considered inherently notable....by the community. Your opinion is not of consequence. So, 5 references, all notable, all adding even more to an already inherently notable article.

Also, do look at the REC Networks page regarding CKBJ (scroll to the bottom, right-hand side), "the station's license was renewed in January 2018". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:09 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

Just for your information: "Data Sources: REC retrieves data from Industry Canada's broadcast spectrum and amateur radio databases. This update is performed weekly on Saturdays. This data includes all broadcast stations regulated by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission (CRTC) and technically administrated by Industry Canada. This includes both CBC, commercial and low-power broadcast stations. Includes all regular and club amateur radio call signs. (At this time, call sign is the only entry method for Canadian amateur radio records.)"

REC Networks information IS from the CRTC. Sorry, but YOU are incorrect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:12 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am very definitely not incorrect. It is absolutely impossible for a station to have a CRTC license without that fact being verifiable on the CRTC's website. If a station has a CRTC license, then by definition there have to be CRTC decisions about it: the initial issuance, the regular seven-year renewals. If such decisions do not turn up on a search of the CRTC website, then they do not exist — and if licensing decisions do not exist, then by definition the station does not have a CRTC license, because if it had a license then licensing decisions would inherently have to exist.

Secondly, sources can be perfectly fine for verification of facts, while failing to be conferrers of notability. Recnet can and does contain errors, for example — so we do have a consensus that it can be used as an external link on radio station articles, but we also have a longstanding consensus that it is not appropriate for use as a footnoted reference for body content. And the Canadian Association of Broadcasters is a directly affiliated source, since by definition every radio or television station that has a page on its site is a member of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters — so, again, it is fine for use as an external link, but not as a notability-making footnote, because it is not independent of the subject. Government reports are also not notability-makers, and neither is the station's own self-published web presence.

The CRTC website is easily searchable, and is the definitive authority on whether a radio station has a CRTC license or not. If there are no CRTC licensing decisions, there is no CRTC license. Period. And as for Industry Canada, they maintain records on all transmitters operating in Canada at all, completely without regard to the matter of whether there's a CRTC license or not. CRTC licensed stations obviously have to be in the Industry Canada database, but radio transmitters that don't have CRTC license are also in the Industry Canada records too — so inclusion in Recnet does not prove there's a CRTC license, because having a CRTC license is not automatically implied by the existence of an Industry Canada record. IC just proves that a radio transmitter exists or existed; it proves nothing about whether that radio transmitter was a licensed radio station or an unlicensed Part 15. To prove that a station had a CRTC license, you have to find licensing decisions on the CRTC website. If the station actually had a CRTC license, then it would be inherently impossible for there to not be any CRTC decisions issuing and renewing said license.

And as for your "scroll to the bottom" that you thought was a mic drop, you've actually proven exactly the opposite of what you thought you were proving. The "broadcasting certificate" is just IC's technical authorization, and is not a CRTC license. A CRTC-licensed station, as seen here for an example, has to also list a "CRTC letter date" and a "CRTC hearing date" alongside the "Broadcasting certificate", and a station without those pieces of information does not have a CRTC license. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You get REC Networks takes all their Canadian information from the CRTC, right? So, that means REC Network's information is the CRTC's information, right? So, what are your arguing about? Currently you are arguing about nothing. You are desperately trying to disprove the existence of something that is proven by it being on REC Network's website as it comes from the CRTC. You are wrong. Now, short of any other information, not in italics, that prove otherwise and not from a website you yourself have said you can't search (so I'm not sure why you are expecting to find something on the CRTC site), this conversation is over. My Keep stands, the sources are notable per RS and N, the page is now "up to code" per NMEDIA and GNG, and barring any other !votes, this will be a quick AfD. We're done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:00 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

You get that Industry Canada is not the CRTC, right? What you've shown is that Recnet imports Industry Canada data, not CRTC data, and Industry Canada is not the CRTC. Industry Canada keeps records on all radio transmitters regardless of whether they're licensed radio stations or unlicensed VF/Part 15s, so neither IC nor Recnet constitute evidence that a station has a CRTC license. If you want evidence that a station has a CRTC license, the CRTC is where you have to go to find it.

You also don't seem to understand that I have not "myself said that I can't search the CRTC website" — I have repeatedly, and entirely correctly, said the exact opposite. The CRTC website is EASILY SEARCHABLE, and both comprehensive and definitive for what is actually in the CRTC's purview. It's not useful if you're looking for a source for the statement that CAAA-FM has changed its call sign to CBBB-FM, because stations don't need CRTC permission to change their call signs so the CRTC doesn't have to issue any decisions about something like that — but the CRTC does have to issue decisions granting a radio station a license in the first place, and those decisions are searchable.

The CRTC's website has a search bar. You can type words into that search bar, and poof, out come search results — which means it is a searchable site.

If a station has a CRTC license, licensing decisions will absolutely always turn up in that search. It is impossible for a station to have a CRTC license if there are no licensing decisions on the CRTC's website — if a station has a CRTC license, then the CRTC has to have issued decisions to grant and renew said license. Always and without exception. And those documents are searchable: if they're not found by searching the CRTC website, it is because they do not exist.

So I searched. I searched for CKBJ-FM and Town Radio and Eastman Media and Lane Robertson and Beausejour MB, and I got nothing. And that's not because an easily searchable site is somehow unreliable on the matter of its own licensing decisions — it's because licensing decisions pertaining to this station do not exist, and the thing that you are interpreting as proof that this station has a CRTC license proves no such thing.

You really need to stop (a) putting words in my mouth that are the opposite of what I actually said, and (b) pretending that you know better than I do about how the Canadian media landscape works. Sure, we may be done here, but you're dead wrong about why: I'm not the one who's failing to understand anything here. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not responding to your posts again, I am not reading them again, continue to post if it makes you happy and until you are blue in the face. You are wrong and you can't admit you are wrong even with the information proving you wrong is staring you in the face. So, take you unnecessarily italized-and-bolded walls of text and go somewhere else. This conversation is over and has been over for at three replies My Keep stands. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:04 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

I don't give a rat's ass what you are or aren't responding to, or what you are or aren't reading.

The CRTC website is fully searchable. I am 100 per cent correct about that.

A station cannot have a CRTC license if the CRTC has never published any decisions granting it a license. I am 100 per cent correct about that.

Industry Canada, which is separate from the CRTC, keeps technical records on all radio transmitters in Canada regardless of whether they have CRTC licenses or not. I am 100 per cent correct about that.

Recnet imports Industry Canada data, not CRTC data, and thus does not constitute proof that a radio station has a CRTC license despite the station's failure to produce any results on the CRTC's website. I am 100 per cent correct about that.

The CRTC is the final authority on whether it has issued a broadcasting license or not; if a decision granting a broadcasting license cannot be found by searching the CRTC website, it is because no such decision exists at all. I am 100 per cent correct about that.

I have literally not said a single incorrect thing in this entire discussion. I know how the Canadian media landscape works — I'm the resident expert on that. This station simply does not have a CRTC license. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but did you honestly say "I know how the Canadian media landscape works — I'm the resident expert on that." Dude! :D Wow! Do yourself a favor and stop making an ass of yourself. You're making a fool of yourself on a website that holds every diff forever. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:36 on October 7, 2019 (UTC)

You do realize I'm a Canadian citizen with a university degree in journalism who's actually worked as a radio producer, right? I've actually been personally involved in radio applications before the CRTC, and I know the difference between a CRTC license and an Industry Canada technical certificate — if I tell you that the CRTC's website is the final authority on the matter of whether a station has a CRTC license or not, and that what you've offered is merely proof of an IC tech cert and not proof of a CRTC license, you can trust that I know what I'm talking about, because it's actually been my job to know this stuff. If I tell you that a radio station having an entry in Industry Canada's technical database (except that while this one may have had one previously, it doesn't have one now) is not a priori proof that a station has a CRTC licence, because Industry Canada keeps technical records on all radio transmitters whether they're licensed or not, you can trust that I know what I'm talking about, because it's actually been my job to know this stuff. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. In any case, even if this station proves to be licensed, it has zero indications of actual notability. i have never liked the "automatic notability" for radio stations with no actual coverage to meet the WP:GNG, and this seems to me a case where the GNG should take precedence. It is surely not met here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC) @Bearcat: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BCAST. It's not a truly licensed broadcast station and has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat's well-cited nomination. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no presumption of notability for unlicensed stations (and Industry Canada certificates don't qualify as a "license" for our purposes — and nothing indicates the CRTC has ever issued a license, or anything else, to this station), and there just isn't much in the way of sources to meet the general notability guideline. Even its History of Canadian Broadcasting entry admits that CKBJ-FM has only ever operated under "Industry Canada special event certificates" — and I'm to understand that's a type of temporary authorization (which, based on the earlier comments, seems to have been allowed to eventually lapse without renewal, replacement, or sufficiently-verifiable evidence of any such decision) that, to put it simply, falls far closer to Part 15 than a bona fide license. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:56, 12 October 2019 (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.