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The result was keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) JayJay^{Talk to me} 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KUMM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Delete.The article has one source that is used to cite ownership of the station. There are no sources that are contained in the article, or the indication of the existence of any sources that support a claim of notability. Naturally, when there is an existence of significant coverage, the article does not need to cite all or any of them aside from when a reliable source is required. A good example of this would be WCCO (AM) (The article does have it's own set of issues. However, there is existence of such sources in easy to find places throughout the web without too much digging)

The Wikipedia policy for notability of a Radio Station is not merely the presence of an FCC license. Please see WP:BROADCAST.Aaron Booth (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Speedy Close: User has clearly not read WP:BROADCAST, as it says a station that has a license and is broadcasting (which this one is) is inherently notable. There are also numerous other AfDs that have show that community consensus is that radio and television stations are notable. This station is notable, it has sources (one going to the FCC) and WP:BURDEN is on User:Aaron Booth to source the page, not us. Page also stands up to GNG as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 24 February 2012 (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/2012 February 24. Snotbot  t • c »  22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please point out to me the line under Radio, dealing with negotiability, that it is stated that an FCC license automatically establishes notability. The line I am reading reads as such: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." Thanks.Aaron Booth (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:BROADCAST: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. Local affiliates of notable networks are themselves presumed notable unless they are translator stations." This pretty much allows all stations (unless they are a translator or a TIS) to have a page. If they are a translator, they are redirected to the main article (see K-LOVE), if they are a TIS, they are merged into the article about the associated town, park or other site. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, WP:Broadcast gives an example to a type of licensed station that does not meet notability requirements. Also inconsistent with the "inherently notable" statement.

"On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP. Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles."

Aaron Booth (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this station is NOT a TIS station, part of a park or tourist facility. It is a college station run by college kids with college programming. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral admin comment: I looked at this with an eye towards closing as a speedy keep. I may be missing something, but I can't find anything in WP:BROADCAST that says any US broadcast radio station which has an FCC licence and is broadcasting, is taken here as inherently notable (and the policy hasn't been edited for months). Hence, so far, this AfD doesn't look like a speedy keep to me. Moreover, I don't see anything in this short discussion that shows the article text as yet meets anything in WP:BROADCAST, though it does seem to have been broadcasting since 1972, which if cited in the article might lead editors (perhaps only the two of you) to a quick consensus that the topic is notable owing to an "established broadcast history." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: The "FCC License" comes into play from the top of the WP:BROADCAST section. "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming." That "reliable source" would be the Federal Communications Commission or FCC (a US Government entity) and the "FCC License". The other "factors" are also covered, since the programming is unique (ie: not from a satellite network like K-LOVE) and it has importance to the community (in this case the University of Minnesota-Morris community). Those are the main standards for creating a radio station page. Now, granted, I would like to see more of a history to the page and I can find a resident radio research (User:Dravecky) for that, but as it stands now, it is a standard stub of a radio station article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiable FCC licence in itself is neither verification nor reliable sourcing that a staion has "importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming." Hence, no, the policy does not say that any US station with an FCC licence is inherently notable. Something further must be shown, though given all the ways to do that, the bar is set rather low. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We kinda have to set it low, if we set it any higher, we pretty much limit ourselves to stations like KDKA (AM) and WCBS (AM), which have been around since the '20s. It would be a handful of stations. So, we set the bar low, but we take great care to make sure that we only let in stations that have unique programming (actually coming from that station), stations that are actually broadcasting (there are TONS of stations with licenses, but not all get a page cause they aren't broadcasting (we require a "license to cover" to have been issued before making a page), translators won't get a page (those little 1 watt stations in downtown wherever) as they are redirected to the main page...even if they are a full-power "translator". So, while the bar is low and it is set that way on purpose in notability, the members of WP:WPRS who patrol and update these pages, set the bar higher when making the pages. We need the bar to be low, it helps, but we arbitarily set it higher so not ever station and it's brother get a page...whether it is on the air or not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The best solution I can see at this point would be to delete the page, and include it in the article University of Minnesota Morris which is the institution that runs the Radio Station. I believe it is likely a suitable bit of information to be included on that article. Any objections? -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far, since it looks to me as though the text could be written and cited in a way that shows this topic is notable, this discussion is likely to head much more towards keep than delete. I'm only saying that going by the article text alone, this isn't a speedy keep, much less a speedy delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of objections. Not happenin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• By the way, WP:BURDEN has mostly to do with the need to show verifiability of the content one has added to an article, if asked to do so. If there's a lack of content and claims in the article, the only burden, so to speak, would be on the editor who indeed goes so far as to click on the edit button and go about adding some. However, the verifiability policy does not say Aaron Booth or any other editor must click on the edit button at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see how notability is an issue, it was alot of radio stations that have their own article would be deleted. In mind this article has been around since 2004. Page views says to me people are interested even though its not much its still means people are interested JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now due to improvements I think we have gotten ourselves to the best possible situation in that the article was improved now to establish notability under WP:Broadcast due to "established broadcast history". The article has established that in my opinion, as well as now provided two third party sources. So at this point I will now rescind my previous objections to the station meeting the notability standards. I would hope that in the future such comments that were initially posted to my talk page in regards to my proposition for deletion, will be rephrased in a more civil manner. We were able to get much farther once we moved towards refreshing specific Wikipedia policy and precedent and improving the article due to this discussion to rectify the initial objection. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So nomination withdrawn? JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn Yes, I withdraw my nomination. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2012 (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.