Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYWC-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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYWC-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Another station which does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Government and third-party sources show that it is, indeed, on the air and sources back it up. GNG satisfied, NMEDIA is happy too. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, that's not what GNG means. As you well know. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Existence does not satisfy GNG, and NMEDIA is currently being rejected 2-to-1 in an RFC.[1] Alsee (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alsee: That's the rewrite of NMEDIA, not the actual thing itself. Onel5969: Telling people how to !vote and acting like you are an expert on GNG isn't cogent thinking...sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of the two non-listing sources is a dead link, and the other is not significant coverage. (I'd suggest a redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Dumaguete as an ATD if it were mentioned there that the diocese has a radio division.) A couple of sidebars, one to SBKSPP and the other to Onel5969. First, to SBKSPP, I hope these AfDs and the comments at the RfC are sending a message that the quality of these Philippines radio station pages needs to improve and higher-quality sources are required. Secondly, I can't say I'm particularly enthused with the fact that Onel5969 continues to nominate pages for deletion at a time when there is a large notability discussion taking place (though I generally agree this fails the GNG at this time). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sammi Brie, most of these pages were redirects, and have been recreated and are now appearing in the NPP queue backlog (this particular one wasn't). As they come up during my NPP is when I take action. If they were left as redirects, this wouldn't be an issue, but several editors insist on recreating them. I'd be more than happy to simply turn them back into redirects. But turning them into redirects at this time is simply a waste of time, meanwhile they add to the NPP backlog. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this station does not pass WP:GNG, all of the coverage has some sort of problem with it. SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – there's no significant coverage sufficient to meet the GNG, and no plausible redirect target is apparent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sources 2 and 3 indicate part of the station's programming. Source 4 indicates the station's broadcast coverage. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Astig's and Neutralhomer's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - again, simply stating something pass GNG, when it so evidently does not, is not a way to bolster your argument. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've already commented. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutralhomer, hi stalker. You do realize you can comment as many times as you want? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • A personal attack, how sweet. No, I !voted on it, so I watchlisted it. I follow the article alerts page. What I don't do is telling each and every person about your opinion on GNG as you did above. That's not a comment, that's an opinion. Curtail the personal attacks and present a more cogent argument other than "simply stating something pass GNG...is not a way to bolster your argument". You aren't in charge of the AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutralhomer, My apologies. Will strike my comment above, was confusing you with a different editor. While you and I have disagreements, that's what they are disagreements. Again, my apologies. I will completely redact it if you would like. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mistakes happen, disagreements definitely happen when we are different sides of this very tense debate. I appreciate the apology. Apology accepted. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources are sparse and not significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched and searched. I was unable to find sources to support Notability. WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. Alsee (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. It was said that DYWC FM is affiliated with CMN. Any flaws may lead to deletion. ACQ322Acuity (answer me) 11:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All coverage is trivial. Mlb96 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Neutralhomer's comments and WP:BCASTOUTCOMES NemesisAT (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All coverage blatantly fails WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is very little coverage for this minor station. What little that has been found is far too sparse to count as significant coverage, thus failing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2021 (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.