Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYQC

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. The Delete views are anchored in guidelines, while the Keep !votes merely allude to sources that never materialized. The nom's redir ATD received no support. Owen× ☎ 01:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYQC[edit]

[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)

No significant coverage in RS. Can be redirected to Aliw Broadcasting Corporation. MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two source states that the station is licensed. Sources 3 to 6 talk about the station's programming. The last source talks about the station's rebrand. That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 09:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mere primary source records are not significant coverage. Please, could you point out which exact secondary sources cover DYQC specifically are in depth? MarioGom (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 to 7 are indeed secondary sources. And therefore provides WP:SIGCOV to the subject (or its programming). I have explained more than enough. And I won't respond to this post again. ASTIG 😎🙃 10:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
404	1. 2019 NTC FM Stations
Name listed in table, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	NTC Region 7
No SIGCOV, simply states, "its episodes are aired at 106.7 Home Radio, according to the schedules given to the students and parents concerned."	3. ^ DepEd-7 urges school divisions to come up with other modalities
No SIGCOV, simply states, "Currently one radio station is tapped by the City Government and it is 106.7 Home Radio."	4. ^ Hagit sa mga magtutudlo sa kahanginan
Article does not mention subject	5. ^ Cebu City learners to hear ‘modules on air’ starting January 2021
No SIGCOV, simply states, "Basaha sa ubos ang daily Radio-Based Instruction schedule nga madungog sa 106.7 Home Radio FM Station."	6. ^ PAHIBALO SA TANANG CEBU CITY PARENTS UG LEARNERS
Routine mill news about formatting change. Information from subject, fails WP:IS, fails WP:SIGCOV	7. ^ Celario, Eunice; Cambri, Susan (January 30, 2023). "Pagbabago sa DWIZ Kaabang-abang". Filipino Mirror. Retrieved January 30, 2023.

No objection if a consensus redirect emerges, but I can't find one I think is useful. // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in various reliable and independent sources.RomanRaju (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which source provides significant coverage? Significant coverage means that a source addresses the topic directly and in detail. MarioGom (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above pointing out significant independent coverage. Also I will never stop pointing out that media outlets typically do not cover each other, and this should be taken into account when assessing the notability of subjects that are themselves sources of coverage. WilsonP NYC (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: so far, the "keep" votes above have essentially been hand-waving at WP:SIGCOV without really demonstrating meaningful concrete evidence of such coverage. Meanwhile, the only one in this discussion who appears to have critically dug into the sources is TimothyBlue, and no rebuttals have yet been made against their source evaluation table. Left guide (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TimothyBlue is currently the most persuasive comment above, relisting to see if there is any response to their comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TimothyBlue. I'm not convinced, not only by sources used in the article, but also by those who voted to keep it. I bet they will not bother finding reliable sources & add them to the article. Israel's Son 16:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep votes provide no sources to eval. // Timothy :: talk 17:05, 28 January 2024 (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.