Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WHAV

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 keep. Take sourcing concerns, if any, to the talk page. czar 09:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHAV

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

This post amounts to little more than an advertisement for the business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioToupe90 (talk • contribs)

Response (Speedy Keep):

Business? What business? Current license is non-commercial, held by a non-profit community entity.
This article (not "post") is no more an advertisement than the thousands of WP articles about other radio stations, few of which have call signs with as rich and interesting a history. Hertz1888 (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Hertz1888. Nom cites "the business" but as Hertz1888 describes, the article describes a succession of businesses, the current callsign user being a nonprofit and most of the earlier ones now defunct... so it's hard to see who's benefitting from the "advertising". Anyway, WP contains many articles that are solely about businesses, and an unkind (or maliciious) eye could see many of them as "advertising"... but as long as the articles are written in accordance with NPOV, DUE, etc., they're ok. Nom does not specify how article meets any of the AFD criteria, merely alludes to #4 (advertising)... but #4 says:

" Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)"

The WHAV article contains considerable encyclopedic content. I'll also note that this is apparently the nominator's first contribution to WP; she or he does not even know enough to sign their post nor to provide a wikilink to the subject article. AFD should be summarily closed as specious and nominator should be advised to get more experience here before wasting our time with any more AFDs. Jeh (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I wouldn't mind seeing a few more sources, but all and all, the article more than meets GNG, NMEDIA, RS, NPOV, V and N. As for the "business" issues, which I'm guessing means "advertising", I'm not seeing that here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:25 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)
Comment: User:RadioToupe90, the creator of this AfD has had but two edits. The one to create this AfD and one to add the template to the WHAV page. I recommend we take this AfD with a grain of salt and speedy close it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:27 on June 22, 2016 (UTC)

Snow Keep - Clearly satisfies WP:BROADCAST: "Notability can be established by... established broadcast history, or unique programming." Whether or not article reads like an "advertisement" is irrelevant here: article quality does not determine notability. Incidentally, long-standing convention at WP:WPRS that licensed radio stations which originate their own programming are inherently notable. Levdr1lp / talk 10:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: As previously mentioned, this doesn't really look like an advertisement, especially since more of the article is devoted to the history of the original station than to the current WHAV. In addition to this !vote, I've properly formatted this (weeks-old) AfD, which might help to at least lead to a former closure of the debate; I'll also note that the nominator has not made any other contributions to Wikipedia since the nomination, which to date still comprise the only two edits by RadioToupe90 (talk · contribs). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Well meets WP:BROADCAST easily. Nate • (chatter) 03:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: Not only is this AfD of a well-written, well-balanced article (almost entirely focused on a defunct station) that's not remotely promotional on specious grounds, but I'm comfortable with terming this a bad faith nomination. Ravenswing 05:10, 12 July 2016 (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.