Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite

New talk page

I've created this page for now to help centralize discussion off of the busy Wikipedia talk:Notability and also to create the fork Wikipedia:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite to allow for the production of the rewrite relative to current NMEDIA. The RfC will go at the top of this page when it is started. Pinging contributors: @Sdkb, Neutralhomer, Pete Forsyth, Novem Linguae, SportingFlyer, Bearcat, Masem, and North8000: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Should we move the discussion here and direct everyone here? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:44, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Stand by.... - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:48, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion moved, verbatim, and links added to the new discussion area. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping Onel5969. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As a note, I plan on pinging about 25 additional editors when this goes to RfC based on their participation in deletion discussions in the field and prior WPRS/TVS discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Decided to bring these editors in now to get increased eyeballs on the changes and feedback before we take this to RfC — please take a look at the proposed changes in Wikipedia:Notability (media)/2021 rewrite and the talk page. They are @Tvtonightokc, VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004, MB, Brainulator9, Rreagan007, BlueboyLINY, Mrschimpf, Mvcg66b3r, Rudy2alan, SMcCandlish, GhostInTheMachine, Superastig, Albert Isaacs, Mark999, Tcr25, Rusf10, Wcquidditch, DrChuck68, 78.26, Netoholic, Stereorock, Spiderone, SBKSPP, and Extraordinary Writ: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I read the revised version and it looks more specified for every subtopic. BCAST looks more uniform with BCASTOUTCOMES and is close to my notability standards when it comes to Philippine radio and TV. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Superastig: I've been particularly looking forward to your feedback given the steady drip of radio AfDs down there. I'd particularly like you to read the #GNG and impacts on broadcast stations section. It's occurring to me that part of what might need to work here is a restatement of existing, but often forgotten, policy. I happened to be looking at the talk page of KXAI → KZAI (original version) which was created in 2009 with a "find sources" box that states, Licensed radio stations usually enjoy a general presumption off [sic] notability in Wikipedia but articles still must be well referenced. I'd like to hear what @SportingFlyer and Onel5969: think about this particular idea because they have been among the more regular delete !votes at these deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not straightforward at all. It leads with a "probably not notable," which isn't helpful to the readers, and what is/isn't notable is dependent on judgement calls, not whether adequate sourcing exists for a standalone page. SportingFlyer T·C 09:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Sammi Brie - I'm not really participating in this discussion, other than the discussion I had with NL and SKDB. I'm persuadable either way, and look forward to the final proposal. For NPP patrolers, it would make it simpler to make every radio station notable, but I'm not sure simply because it's easier it's correct. That said, specifically to your point above, I tend to agree with SF's analysis that it still is quite subjective. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Also thanks for the ping. I'm primarily (almost exclusively) interested in the Broadcast criteria, having previously worked in radio. I'll have more thoughts (if I ever gather them), but what does "Has a large audience" mean? Does that mean a local town's (population 300) single radio station has an audience of 200 people, therefore a 66% market penetration? Does it mean you need 100,000 listeners to be considered "large"? Room for interpretation is healthy at notability discussions, but this one may create more problems than it solves, without some kind of explanation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Should WP:NMEDIA be removed from the SNG sidebar?

WP:NMEDIA is the only non-guideline, non-policy in the SNG sidebar. I believe "explanatory supplement" is just a fancy word for "essay". Another issue is that it duplicates sections covered in other guidelines, such as WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILM, which is a maintenance issue since they could get out of sync. I stumbled across it while trying to answer the question, "do newspapers have any SNG criteria"? I also stumbled across WP:NNEWSPAPER. So I guess the answer is that 0 guidelines and 2 essays cover newspapers, therefore they don't have an authoritative SNG? I guess I'll insist on GNG for newspapers. Anyway, does WP:NMEDIA deserve the prominence of being included in the SNG sidebar, or should we remove it? Or if it is pretty accurate, maybe we should RFC it and make it a guideline? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I never noticed that. Being in the sidebar does even more than give it prominence, the other wording here effectively / structurally treats everything in the sidebar as a guideline and thus an official (at least near term) bypass of GNG. IMO nothing that is in essence an essay or not an official guideline,(and subject to the higher scrutiny /bar that goes with being one) should be listed in that sidebar. North8000 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Novem Linguae: As someone who likes to edit newspaper articles, the notability standards in the area are indeed an overlapping mess; I previously raised that issue here. However, my sense is that NMEDIA has as much buy-in as the pages tagged as guidelines, and it's personally the one I prefer the most. I floated making it a guideline a month ago, and that's the path I think we ought to take, alongside an effort to clarify which SNGs have which scope. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb, I am concerned about adding essays alongside the other subject-specific notability guidelines as if they enjoy equal weight. I also feel this opens the door to the addition of other notability essays to the SNG sidebar, such as WP:NSOLDIER, WP:CRIN, WP:YTN, WP:NVG, WP:NSOFTWARE, Category:WikiProject notability advice, etc. In my opinion, there should be a clear differentiation between guidelines that have been approved through the RFC process and that are encouraged to be cited at AFD and that often have provisions to "auto pass" articles, versus essays which are just people's attempts to document the common WP:OUTCOMES and which are rather numerous. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• We could make a section in that sidebar for "essay" level SNG guidance. There's a few other SNG essays out there. But I agree we should remove it from the list of consensus-granted SNgs. --Masem (t) 15:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Masem and Novem Linguae: Fair points both. Adding an essay level to the sidebar seems like a reasonable solution. I wanted to avoid us having excessive WP:BURO by removing NMEDIA just because of its tag when in reality it has as much buy-in as most guidelines, but I guess I'm jumping the gun a bit. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't mind the addition of an essay section if that's what people want. But I think that there are quite a few notability essays. It could add a lot of content to the sidebar. It could also encourage people to cite these essays in AFD discussions, which could be opening a pandora's box. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  That's a fair point too. I guess it depends on how much buy-in notability essays typically have (a question I don't spend enough time at AfD to know the answer to). If they're like NMEDIA, it'd be helpful to have them. But if NMEDIA is the only one frequently cited at AfD and anything else would draw reactions of "that's just an essay", having the section would be unhelpful. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, {{Supplement}} is a species of {{Essay}}. However, the SNGs are not "bypasses" of GNG, with perhaps the sole exception of WP:NPROF (which pre-dates GNG and deals with a specific problem, that even the most professionally influential academics often receive no mainstream press at all, and their influence is measured by the citation rate in journals). Aside from NPROF, the purpose of SNGs is predictive: your article is likely to pass/fail GNG based on X, Y, and Z factors that are topically specific. So, this isn't exactly an emergency. If the material in WP:Notability_(media) is accurate as to predicting GNG passage (there will almost always be multiple instances of in-depth independent RS coverage under the prescribed conditions, and usually will not be absent them), then this should actually be an SNG guideline. If the material is not accurate then it either needs to be fixed, or if it cannot reasonably be fixed, be marked as {{Rejected}}. Finally, if there's any instuction in WP:N or elsewhere saying that the pages in the sidebar are all exceptions or alternatives to GNG, that is an outright error and should be removed. With one exception I know of (NPROF) they are simply explanations of how GNG typically applies within particular topic areas. There is no topic (NPROF aside) that "should" be notable by an SNG but for which source cannot be found that is actually notable; and there is no topic for which great sources can be found which isn't notable simply because it fails an SNG (it might be notable for reasons that have nothing to do with the usual topic-specific rubrics).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I removed WP:Notability_(media) from the sidebar, and only afterwards I found the section here. Ping Sdkb because I belatedly discovered that you had reverted a previous removal. If I had seen your edit sooner, I would have Talked first. You said above in reality it has as much buy-in as most guidelines, but the RFC on making it a guideline is running 2-to-1 opposed. The discussion in this section also looks like a consensus to remove it.
  Regarding ESSAYS in the sidebar, there's already a SEE ALSO in the sidebar linking to 49 Notability-related essays. This is an official directory of guidelines, and I'd strongly urge against adding any individual essays directly onto the sidebar. Anyone can write an essay saying anything, anyone can rewrite an essay at will, and there's a lot of crap. In fact I recently discovered that there are over 1700 essays, the large majority of which should likely be deleted as unused (essentially zero page views) and/or because they are unhelpfully contrary to any accepted norms. Alsee (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Alsee: Thanks for the note. I would ask Sammi Brie, who has been more involved with the RfC than me. It looks like removing the link from the sidebar may be the likely ultimate outcome, but since it's a big step, we should maybe wait until there's a formal RfC result. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sdkb and Alsee, I'm going to end up closing that RfC anyway. There was interest in a notability guideline for media from some editors (some of whom thought it should be more predictive of GNG), but a lot of editors want the GNG itself to be applied instead of an SNG perceived to be an end-around (even if it calls for applying the GNG). It should be removed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Planning for possible RfC to make WP:NMEDIA a guideline

I can't recall any RfC taking place to make a new guideline, so I'd appreciate some advice on how to shepherd that whole process. I assume it'd take place at WP:VPP? Are there any changes we'd want to make to it before putting it forward? And how would clarifying its scope as part of the proposal likely work? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it'd be a decent idea to RFC this if you think it is likely to pass. Before an RFC, you may want to remove the parts that duplicate other SNG's though. For example, the books and films sections. In my opinion, those sections should only live in one place so they don't get out of date. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've notified the newspaper and journalism wikiprojects. Neither are super active, but hopefully we'll get enough participation to get the ball rolling on the RfC. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Would you mind notifying WP:WPRS and WP:TVS as well? I believe they should be aware of this as they will be most affected by any changes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

One of the hardest issues with notability guidelines is the relationship between "what people consider important in the world" and "what is the subject of in-depth coverage". For some subjects, like world leaders, the ratio is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, with internet memes and reality TV on one end and academics/scientists/educators/doctors somewhere on the other (my own bias is slipping in, but regardless of how relatively important you think these groups are, it's probably more than the amount of coverage they receive). I'd argue that some forms of media are with the latter group. Publishers, newspapers, radio stations, tv stations, news agencies, etc. put out a lot of content which gets coverage, but not as much for the outlet itself, even while they affect the lives of large numbers of people. I say all this because NMEDIA is positioned to be one of those SNGs that include exceptions to the GNG rather than clarify it. Just putting that to an RfC is likely going to be shot down, so I think it'd be important for those involved in these areas to be directly involved with any RfC to ensure that the SNG is updated to present clear arguments which justify those exceptions, being sure to at least reconsider the loosest criteria. $0.02. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites, yeah, I think the reasoning at WP:NMEDIA#Why separate criteria is persuasive and well worth reading. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I think the general sentiment of the project is moving away from exceptions to GNG, which is a great thing! The reason why comes from the fact we need to be able to write a reliable, independent, and substantial encyclopaedia article on the topic, and if we can't, we shouldn't have a stand-alone article on the topic. I'd be strongly opposed to any SNG which creates an exemption to GNG on those grounds, and I don't really think the "separate criteria" is that persuasive - either we can write a reliable article on a topic or we can't. However, I would support clarification on what types of coverage might demonstrate notability, as in "this TV station which everyone watches doesn't receive GNG-qualifying coverage, but while these sources aren't completely independent, they can still contribute to notability for a TV station." SportingFlyer T·C 08:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm reviewing the current text of NMEDIA's broadcast area now and I note the following:

Some of its wording is very North America-centric and should be revised in conjunction with the project to convert it to a guideline.

It needs better wording to emphasize that some types of media (particularly internet radio stations) do not get a presumption of notability inherent in NMEDIA alone.

A good number of areas could read, "Many services of this type are generally not inherently notable, but they may qualify for an article if they meet the GNG".

When this comes to RfC, I'd like to see about pinging the topic editors that were in on last year's overhaul of Infobox radio station as well, to get feedback from the areas impacted most. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sammi Brie When NMEDIA was updated, I believe Bearcat did the update, we only have US, Canadian, and Mexican users. So, we had limited information to work with. Hence the North American-centric feel and wording to the page. If we could have someone like Recnet for a couple to help out, that would help a TON. They, in conjuction with you, would know what is notable, the rules and regs, etc. That would be really helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I would think that the first step here should be to conduct a review of NMEDIA to see if parts of it need to be added to, removed or rewritten for clarity. There have certainly been modest revisions over the years by myself and other editors — for example, I changed the phrase "the uniqueness of the programming" in the broadcast media section to "originating some of its own programming" several years ago, once it became clear that entirely too many people were misinterpreting "uniqueness" as meaning that a radio or television station's programming had to be "creatively innovating whole new things never before seen in the history of broadcasting", rather than just the intended "produced in its own studio rather than being syndicated or networked", to pass that test — but NMEDIA definitely hasn't had a thorough and comprehensive review to see if it's still up to the task of current needs in well over a decade, even though the media landscape has changed very, very significantly in the past 14 years.
Neutralhomer is correct, for instance, that any North American-centric bias here is not because it was intended to be that way, but only because North American editors with little to no expertise in other countries' media were the only people who participated in drafting it. There were efforts to recruit participants from other countries — I was there — but they failed. And just to show you how overdue NMEDIA is for an update, at the time it was written, subscribing to Netflix still involved having DVDs sent to you in the mail. Obviously now it's something very, very different, which NMEDIA needs to take into account in 2021 in a way that wasn't necessary in 2007.
And furthermore, 2007 was a time when Wikipedia's basic sourcing rules were very different than they are now — we were a lot looser about what was acceptable sourcing (even just using the topic's own self-published website, and/or just tossing one news article that mentioned the topic into the external links section, was often taken to be enough), and didn't have the same requirement to use reliable source coverage as footnoting that we have today. So yes, some of the wording in NMEDIA may be outdated, simply because it was written from a 2007 vantage point instead of a 2021 vantage point.
So my first recommendation would be to initiate a more comprehensive review of NMEDIA, to determine what parts of it are still working fine, what parts of it are too NA-centric and need input from other countries, what parts of it need to be rewritten for clarity, what parts of it are outdated and no longer applicable, what parts could just be replaced with a link to a different document instead of duplicating stuff, and what new things need to be added to it. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Bearcat is correct, 2007 was a MUCH different time. MUCH. Anyway, I believe any rule changes should allow for the fact that, in some cases (unfortunately most cases), FCC/CRTC, REC, Radio-Locator, and maybe some radio news website links (the latter is a big maybe) might be all we can find. WWND-LP would be an example of this. The station originates all of it's programming locally, but unless we link to it's own website (which NMEDIA currently frowns upon), this could be considered non-notable. We need to consider that station's like this, especially low-power FMs, do exist and that sometimes we need to take the references we are able to find and "run with them". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

(moving and updating my comment from below) I agree, reviewing current text is the best starting point. In addition, in WikiProject Newspapers and the related News On Wiki campaign, we've considered what should consitute notability for a newspaper, and drafted standards. Some of these standards would apply to other forms of media as well. The goal of that effort is to establish a more formal guideline, and while it's not on any particular timeframe, I do think some good thinking has already gone into it. I'd request those in the discussion to read through what we've come up with there, and consider whether any of the concepts are worth migrating into NMEDIA as part of this discussion. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Question

I would like to ask a question of the group here. This AfD (of KWDC-LP), which became about the notability of NMEDIA itself at the end, was a Keep. Admittedly, I was a jerk, I could have handled it better, let's move on. Anyway, could the AfD, since it became about NMEDIA at the end, give NMEDIA (others call it BCAST) the precedence-setting consensus (more than it already had) to push it to Guideline Status?

I would also like to point out that NMEDIA/BCAST has always been used in conjuction with WP:BCASTOUTCOMES. I believe any RfC should include that section as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If I am understanding WP:PAG correctly, the best way to create a guideline is to have an RFC, and to make sure it is posted at one of the village pumps. In my opinion, an AFD is unlikely to meet the high level of consensus from the entire community clause of WP:PAG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Fair enough. Have we even got to RfC yet or are we still figuring that out? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Given that there's no rush, I think it might benefit us to take a little more time refining NMEDIA (a few days) before launching the RfC. I noticed Novem Lingua did a run through earlier today, which I was very glad to see. I may do the same myself soon if I get a chance. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb Never been in an RfC before, so exactly sure on anything (ie: timeline, protocol, even where the RfC actually takes place, etc.). Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: RfCs usually exist on talk pages. In this case it should be at WT:NMEDIA. There's an RfC tagging template that adds it to the relevant noticeboards. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Now, this, I did not know and is good information. I thought we actually went to RfC and had the RfC. :D 15+ years, never been in an RfC. :) Thanks Sammi! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

<moved my comment up to more relevant section -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)>

Should the Current Radio Station AfDs be halted?

Should the current list of radio station AfDs (with the exception of this one, because it's too soon) be held until this discussion and subsequent RfC is finished so that those AfDs aren't given undue weight under the current rules while a discussion/RfC is ongoing to change the rule (NMEDIA/BCAST) is being discussed? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: A lot of them are in the Philippines. I've compiled a list of editors I will be pinging when we have an RfC for feedback including some of the frequent participants. It seems like they have a lot of radio stations that relay national networks but which have had articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Fair enough, I wasn't sure if that should be done since NMEDIA is being discussed within the AfDs and we are about to change it (hopefully for the better). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think our local consensus would be enough to put an indefinite moratorium on radio AFD's. That seems like a pretty big proposal. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning indefinite, just until we got done. I just thought it would be undue weight on the current AfDs. But I understand, no biggie. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:BCAST (from User talk:Sdkb)

Moved from User talk:Sdkb/Archive 4 § WP:BCAST

Greetings. I've been working on an RfC for this the past couple of days, just trying to see where the best place to begin the discussion was. Earlier today, Novem Linguae pointed me to the discussion on WT:N#Should WP:NMEDIA be removed from the SNG sidebar?. Was wondering if you would be interested in co-authoring the RfC, as I think your viewpoint would be very valuable. Personally, I haven't decided how I would actually vote, but the draft I just saved can be found at User:Onel5969/sandbox/rfc. Regardless, I'd appreciate your input on the suggestions/format and anything else. I do not have a lot of experience with RfC's. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Onel5969, thanks for reaching out! I tend to work on newspaper articles significantly more often than broadcast media articles, so this isn't quite as much in my wheelhouse as it might seem, but I can speak to journalism topics and RfCs more generally.

There are a few things to consider here. The first is the scope—WP:BCAST is part of WP:NMEDIA, so it may be easier to first refine WP:NMEDIA down to the parts that are guideline-worthy and then propose that the page as a whole be made a guideline. Proposing just for BCAST would invite questions of "why that and not the other sections?" given that we're actively considering for the other sections too.

Editors are going to be sensitive about the precise terminology—currently, the page is not a SNG but rather an explanatory supplement. It's the most SNG-like explanatory supplement on Wikipedia (in part due to its inclusion in the sidebar) but doesn't officially have that status. Whether or not it should be made an SNG is I think the main question you'd want to ask in the RfC. There's extremely little chance it would ever be made a policy, as even Wikipedia:Notability is only a guideline, not a policy.

I think the number of options will create messiness. I would advise first discussing at a non-RfC what changes to make to get NMEDIA in good shape, and then asking in the RfC a simple yes/no of if it should be promoted to guideline status.

As a technical matter, the current length of the RfC will break Legobot, so we'll need to add a sentence at the top with a self-contained sentence that can be transcluded to the RfC listings, such as "How should WP:BCAST be classified?"

I hope all that helps. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Sdkb. I was thinking the same things: that a one question, one sentence RFC format would be best, that we should propose promoting all of NMEDIA, that we should shoot for guideline not policy, that there should be a period before launch where we beef up NMEDIA (I made some edits today that hopefully help with this), etc. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both Sdkb and Novem Linguae. Please feel free to edit the sandbox I've started with any ideas you come up with. This is why I asked for help, since I don't have much RfC experience. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I edited Onel's sandbox to include a simple RFC wording. Feel free to improve. I would encourage us to spend a week or two working with top radio station editors, newspaper editors, and editors of any other content in NMEDIA (I think I see academic journals in there) to make sure that NMEDIA reaches top quality. Perhaps we can ping these folks to WT:NMEDIA to centralize discussion, which is currently spread out in multiple places. I also think that somebody needs to edit NMEDIA to make sure that it follows the format of other SNG pages. I also think we need to do an edit purely for clarity. I notice that a lot of the existing SNG's are wordy and have a lot of noise... I don't see why an SNG page couldn't just be a bulleted list of what the auto-pass SNG criteria are. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae, I'm totally with you about policy/guideline pages, including SNGs, being too long. Trimming them down is something I'd definitely like to do at some point, but for now, I think it makes sense to get the page looking roughly like the other SNGs. This will be enough of an uphill climb without the added element of persuading others to adopt shorter SNG pages, and that can be tackled at a later date.

One thing that I think will be key to emphasize at the RfC is just how little of a change from the status quo this would be. I think the most likely way this will pass is if there's a sentiment of "we're closing the loophole of the 'NMEDIA isn't a guideline' argument at AfDs" rather than "we're experimenting with a totally new and different standard we've never tried before". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

If this will only result in a very small change, why are we doing this at all? It's not as if these articles won't still need to also pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, I think the idea is to keep NMEDIA somewhat similar to how it was written before, but make it a guideline instead of an explanatory supplement. That allows it to be more easily cited in deletion discussions, and to help it "auto pass" the "presumed notable" items it talks about. I realize that this "are SNG's an auto pass, or a rebuttable presumption of GNG?" meta-issue is controversial, but at the moment project-wide consensus seems to be slightly in favor of SNG's usually being an auto-pass. This is based on my reading of some recent discussions. Of course, the project has been moving toward some exceptions to this, for example with soccer players that only played one game. But overall, SNG's that are guidelines and that give lists of "inherently notable" or "presumed notable" items can usually be used to auto pass those items without a thorough GNG source analysis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: Having helped work on the text at WP:SNG, unless you're specifically talking about media, I don't think that's necessarily correct. There's only a small handful of SNGs which don't defer to GNG, and the rest are all written in such a way that should predict the GNG will be met (such as NBOOK requiring two reviews.) I don't see why NMEDIA would be an exception. SportingFlyer T·C 07:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion for wording is as follows with a longer explanation to be posted right after, as is typical with RfCs.

Should Wikipedia:Notability (media) be elevated from "explanatory supplement" to "guideline" status?

• The post after this should contain information on why there are some disagreements and also other reasons for the rewrite. We will apparently have a single notability standard for newspapers for the first time, and the broadcast section has been rewritten and will be a lot more intelligible to editors from outside the topic area.
• I have had a list of some 25 people in mind, a lot of them topic editors from the radio and television spaces and also contributors to last year's infobox redesign proposal RfCs in radio and television, to ping at the time this goes to RfC. Should they pinged at that time or now to provide feedback? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe ping them after we are done rewriting, but before the RFC. Probably too early to bring 25 people in, but we should probably get their feedback at some point. Our timeline could be something like: our core group does the rewrite -> ping 25 people for peer review -> replace NMEDIA with our rewrite (likely don't need an RFC to replace as long as there's no major objections, since it's only an explanatory supplement) -> launch RFC to promote NMEDIA to guideline. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Rewrite progress and proposals

I have taken on the entire broadcast media section with these goals:

• Make the writing more generalizable and less dense

I added one change, in this section: "If a channel originates little programming and is part of a large bouquet, it may qualify to be redirected to the article on the suite of channels." This is mostly for pay services that don't have a lot of their own programming and which derive their identity from being part of a suite, such as some of the Zee TV channels, and aren't likely to be independently notable.

I have not touched STUDENTMEDIA as I'd like to see Neutralhomer take a crack at rewriting it, or the other areas. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Thought: it might be useful to remove the "Subject-specific notability" heading and promote all the items in it up one heading level. Thoughts? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. Hard to say. Other SNG's are not consistent. WP:NBIO uses "basic criteria", "additional criteria", and sub-headings. WP:NBOOK uses "Other considerations" and sub-headings. WP:NBAND has them on the top level as you suggest. I slightly prefer sub-headings, but interested in hearing other thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I threw together a little something for STUDENTMEDIA in in my sandbox. It will need to be flushed out a little (feel free to tinker as necessary), but I think you can get the gist of what I am going for there.

I like the the list section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Broadcast media

Notable HD subchannel/FM translator combinations

In the United States, HD Radio digital subchannels as a general rule should be mentioned within a section in the main station article, especially if the subchannel carries a nationwide program service. If the subchannel uses a translator to rebroadcast their signal, include {{Radio Relay}} in the infobox and {{RadioTranslators}} in the subchannel/translator section in the main station article.

Certain exceptions merit a separate article for digital subchannels, however:

• The digital subchannel utilizes a translator to operate as a unique program service and not as a network relay, effectively a de facto radio station. This is ultimately dependent on the available coverage in reliable sources and their overall notability. These articles should always be presented as a digital subchannel that is relayed on a translator, not the other way around. (Examples: WRXL-HD2, WAKS-HD2, WWWQ-HD2)
• The main station article is already extensively written and cited to the point where a separate article for the subchannel is unavoidable. (Examples: WMMS and WMMS-HD2)

This has been a pet peeve of mine for the past few years while looking at different articles with inconsistent ways of framing an HD subchannel/translator combination with notability. It should always be the program source over the translator, without exceptions. Even the use of W233BF is not necessarily the best possible example, as it should in my opinion be merged into WWSZ. Nathan Obral (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this. We currently have about 40 articles on translators...most of which shouldn't be articles even as HD2s. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe for stations that have HD2/HD3/HD4 signals with seperate formats and sources can be found (example W239BV), then seperate pages should and could be made for the HD2/HD3/HD4 translators. If they can't, then the main station should have individual section for HD Radio, with a {{RadioTranslators}} template for the translators themselves. An excellent example of all of this is KZBG, KHTP (for history), and KNDD#KNDD-HD2_Channel_Q (for the RadioTranslators template usage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I think with rare exceptions, like WMMS-HD2, HD subchannels and their translators should be handled in sections within the articles of the main station. That being said, I see several problems with naming the articles after the HD subchannels rather than the translator. Stations of this kind are marketed with the translator's frequency and most people would generally listen to the translator rather than the HD subchannel. Most of these translators have rebroadcast more than subchannel/station over their histories. In some cases the HD subchannel that a translator had been rebroadcasting for years goes dark and the translator remains on the air, rebroadcasting another station. In such instances, having separate articles for each HD subchannel a translator had rebroadcast becomes analogous to having separate articles for each format a station has had, and can make it more difficult for readers to find the information that they are seeking.--Tdl1060 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Student media

I would like to propose a change to this section. While I understand why it was written, for stations like KWDC-LP with very little off-campus coverage (but I found some), other stations like Pitt's WPTS-FM, which goes about as far (if not less) than KWDC, covers the entire Three Rivers area. Still yet, WVU's WWVU-FM is heard all over Morgantown and even into nearby Fairmont. Still further, Seton Hall's WSOU and Columbia's WKCR-FM can be heard across the Five Boroughs to differing extents. A station like WVTW in Charlottesville or WVTF in Roanoke (both BIG signals) are owned by Virginia Tech.

I think this should be rewritten to have coverage area and reference-based clauses built in. If the station is just over the campus...and I mean literally over the campus grounds and nothing else, then it's non-notable. If it's over a town or city like WPTS or WKCR or even KWDC-LP, then it is notable even under STUDENTMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The section doesn't currently create any special notability standard for newspapers one way or the other. I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to create a standard unless we've encountered issues using the standard elsewhere. Keep in mind that the fewer changes we make to NMEDIA, the easier it'll be to pass it on the argument of "this is already a de facto SNG, we're just formalizing it". {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: These are my ideas on STUDENTMEDIA. I'm not versed on Newspapers, so I might need help there (pinging back at Sammi Brie), radio stations are my cup o' tea. But I think the inclusion of some of these college radio stations is a good idea. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This appears to use a lot more words to say the same thing as our current standard. Saying they should use the same standards as BCAST is what the language already implies (the current language is just more general so that it applies to newspapers, too). We don't want to repeat the language of BCAST, as that just creates length and redundancy. Saying they're non-notable otherwise unless they meet GNG is what happens with every SNG, and is usually noted in the lead section. I don't think the examples are necessary; SNGs tend to use those very sparingly. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed with Sdkb. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

As far as radio stations are concerned, it is important that we not use wording that leads to confusion as to what qualifies as student media. Student media is a station that is run by the students of a school and not merely any station owned by an educational institution. Stations like WDCB, which is owned by an educational institution, originates its own programming, but is not student run, should not be merged into the articles of the schools that own them. Similarly full-time public radio network affiliates owned by schools do not qualify as student media, and if these affiliates never aired programming independent of their networks, they can redirect to the network's article, like WVTW redirects to WVTF.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This might be something good to clarify in an efn footnote. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This is what I was going for. Tdl1060 said it better than I did in my sandbox. Basically the sandbox was a "rough idea", which I don't have the writing abilities to flush out. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Student Media Rewrite

College and university-based radio stations should adhere to the standard rules of BCAST:

• Has an FCC license
• Has an established broadcasting history
• Has a large audience
• Originates (or has originated) at least some of its own programming

The station's broadcast coverage area include more than college or university's campus. An example of this would be WWVU-FM or WKCR-FM. Part 15 and Carrier Current should be presumed non-notable unless reliable third party sources are available. An example of this would be WERW (student radio). For a college or university that is home to a NPR network, only the originating station should be listed, with all rebroadcasters and translators redirected to that page. An example of this would be WVTF or West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

For a college or university-based student newspaper should adhere to the rules of Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals), with perferably some "off-campus" coverage of the paper itself.

A student newspaper or radio station which is deemed non-notable should always be redirected to the college or university that it serves.

• This is what I came up with. I know it ain't great, but I was trying to cover everything. It needs flushed out a little more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer, I already gave you comments above. It does not appear that this rewrite reflects them. Fundamentally, I do not think we need to make changes to the student media section. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Apologizes, I did not see those. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: In the current STUDENTMEDIA, it reads "Student media, such as over-the-air college radio stations and student newspapers....". What I am trying to do is make the radio station section more inclusive for college stations. As it reads now, stations like WKCR-FM, WWVU-FM, WVTF, and others can be deleted as non-notable. Whole NPR networks could be deleted per STUDENTMEDIA. I believe they should be declared notable. It's stations like WVCW that are non-notable and what this section should be about.

With the current reading, there is wording regarding student newspapers, but I'm not versed in newspapers, so I need some help. Sammi gave me this section, but this is what I was able to come up with. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Sammi Brie § STUDENTMEDIA

I appreciate you giving me the task of working on STUDENTMEDIA, but I may not but up to it. As you know this is what I came up with, I have asked for help to no avail. I just need a little help flushing out some of the writing and definitely the student newspapers part as I am not well versed there. I am trying to cover everything and I may be putting to much information into the section.

My idea is to have the section blanket cover stations like WKCR-FM, WWVU-FM, KPCC, and others that broadcast well outside their college or university-owned campus. But not cover Part 15 or carrier current stations like WVCW unless significant reliable sources are available like WERW (student radio). Part 15s and carrier currents, since they only serve the college campus would be considered non-notable. College and university owned NPR networks would redirect to a main station like WVTF or the network name like West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

It's just my wording is kinda weak and I'm trying to include too much, I'm afraid. I'm willing to continue, I just know that what I have done so far isn't worthy of inclusion. I'm asking for a little help. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Neutralhomer: I wanted to see the ideas you had, but I agree that the existing language is better to retain with the increased precision suggested. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just afraid with the current language, it might make it easier to AfD stations like WKCR, WWVU, and even college-owned NPR networks. I'll let you all take it from here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The wording was modified and a note added to make clear that public radio stations that are owned by schools but are not student-run do not fall under student media.--Tdl1060 (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The modified wording seems fine, but the footnote feels like WP:CREEP to me. Maybe it's just since I'm not coming to this from the radio side, but I'm not seeing what the concern is that this section will somehow prevent notable topics from being able to have a page. All it says it that they should be judged by the same standards as other media, which means that if they pass either WP:BCAST or WP:GNG they'll be kept. And if they pass neither of those, they don't deserve to be kept. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

And if they pass neither of these, the appropriate route for genuine student media would be to merge any content that could be reliably sourced to the school's article, or an article on the appropriate department. If they pass neither of these but are not genuine student media, but are a member of a public radio network, its page should redirect to the article on the public radio network, not to the school that owns it. That was my main concern.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Replacement of WP:CORP with WP:GNG

In the current version of NMEDIA, there are three places where WP:CORP is a requirement for notability. In this proposal, they have all been downgraded to WP:GNG. I cannot support this change since it would drop the WP:AUD requirement and in effect would allow someone to argue that a local public accesss station is notable because the local newspaper wrote several articles about it.

I would implement the following changes to maintain our high standards for inclusion:

for Broadcast (terrestrial) television stations

• Proposed stations which never broadcast, unless coverage of such passes the notability guideline for organizations and corporations. A service about to launch should not get an article until a confirmed launch date has been announced.

for Broadcast radio stations

• Proposed stations which never broadcast, unless coverage of such passes the notability guideline for organizations and corporations. An article should generally not be created on a station until it begins broadcasting, not when a construction permit is issued.
• Internet and unlicensed (pirate) stations, unless coverage of such passes the notability guideline for organizations and corporations.
• Temporary stations authorized under such schemes as a Restricted Service License, unless coverage of such passes the notability guideline for organizations and corporations.

for Pay television and radio services

• National and regional public access and legislative broadcasters are generally notable, though a local governmental access channel generally is not unless it meets the notability guideline for organizations and corporations.

--Rusf10 (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Rusf10, this wasn't intended, but since there has been a ton of discussion about alignment of this SNG with the GNG in particular, I think this is a good question to bring up and would like more input from the other editors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie:Thanks, glad to know it wasn't intentional. My main concern is at AfD where you may have a public access cable channel from the local college and someone would come up with 10 articles in the local newspaper and claim that it is notable, when in reality no one outside of that local area is even aware of the channel's existence.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• There should probably be a specific site-wide RfC about this if we're going to make that change. WP:NCORP is a much higher standard. SportingFlyer T·C 19:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Rusf10 and SportingFlyer: Right now with pre-rewrite NMEDIA, the situation is that the GNG is invoked for temporary stations, and CORP is invoked for government access TV channels, as well as potential operators of travelers' information stations (say, parks or highway departments). The guideline is ambiguous as to which applies for unlicensed stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Stations that do not require a license to operate, such as Part 15 stations in the United States, VF stations in Canada, closed-circuit services, pirate broadcasters or "carrier current" stations limited to the boundaries of a college campus, as well as internet radio stations, are not presumed notable just for existing, but may have notability conferred on them by meeting WP:CORP standards. Where verifiable, an unlicensed station may be mentioned in the appropriate contexts (such as an article about its parent organization or school, if one exists or can be created), but is not eligible for its own standalone article unless it can be sourced over WP:GNG via reliable source coverage.

I am changing the draft text to use WP:CORP in line with the existing NMEDIA text, in part to avoid making too many substantive changes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The proposed stations that never broadcast never get a page, per TOOSOON (see CFCH-FM) as they are technically "on paper". Some people jump the gun and make pages. Most of the time they get deleted, but occasionally, they will be moved to DRAFT. But proposed stations, even under the current writing of NMEDIA have always been non-notable per TOOSOON and maybe even CRYSTAL. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Sammi Brie:I see that you changed this again (especially as it relates to local access channels). I cannot support this unless something is added to that states significant coverage must come from sources that are NOT exclusively local to the area when the station is broadcast.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Rusf10, this time this is on purpose because the guideline has been subordinated in large part to the GNG. I thought that, for the vast majority of cases, it'd be weird to say "these articles pass the GNG, unless they are X, in which case they are generally not notable and must pass WP:CORP". I did change back (with a clarifying note) the last bullet point (on local access channels) to prevent this from being exploited. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, that works.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions by Novem Linguae

I'll add things here as I think of them.

• The auto pass SNG's should be spelled out super clearly. Preferably as bullets in a bulleted list. This is the main info that people will probably be looking for when they visit this article.
• Consider adding examples to each of the station bullets. As an editor not familiar with NMEDIA stuff, words like travelers' information station are nebulous to me and could benefit from an example.
• We may want to consider deleting the sections "Newspapers, magazines and journals" and "Academic journals". In a way, these are different content areas. Or, we should bring experts in from those WikiProjects to make sure that that info is correct and likely to pass RFC.

Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm here from the newspapers area. The main draw of making this an SNG for me is that it'll create a specific standard for newspapers where previously there was none, so I'd be strongly opposed to removing that. I feel less strongly about academic journals. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, one of the few comments that came up in the RfC from the newspapers section was that "award-winning" needed definition. Any thoughts on how to rectify this? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie, I would suggest as a starting point borrowing from the language at WP:ANYBIO and going with "the publication has produced work that has received a well-known and significant journalism award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The other thing that would probably be helpful (and I'm parroting some sage advice @Yair rand gave me way back) is that when the RfC is relaunched, everything that can be distinctly separated ought to be. So for this case, if any !voters want to give only the newspapers section SNG status, or only the broadcast section, there should be an option available for them to do that. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, I've added examples in the broadcast area which has already been rewritten to use bullet points. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

• If we're going to do this, we should think in chunks, and focus on the GNG. Here are the "chunks" currently in the article:

1. Books - already has its own SNG, can ignore
2. Films - already has its own SNG
3. Academic journals - appears to have been removed?
4. Newspapers - not currently tailored to the GNG/NORG
5. Broadcast media - this, as it stands, is a mess and the re-write is actually moving away from being tailored to GNG/NORG. Most of what's there now looks like an outcomes section. This isn't 2007, we need to look specifically at what coverage radio stations receive that makes them notable.
6. Student media - probably fine as is?
7. Programming - currently also written like an outcomes section

• What we should probably do is hammer out what sort of coverage the most notable of these receive and then keep working downwards. For instance, any newspaper of record will have been significantly discussed by secondary sources and should probably be added to the newspaper guideline. We need to make sure for all of these, similar to WP:NBOOK, that meeting any prong will give us enough sources to write a reliable, neutral encyclopaedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: I noticed you said you are here from Newspapers, could you take a look at the above section for STUDENTMEDIA. I'm not knowledgeable when it comes to newspapers and the rules there, that needs to be flushed out a little more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

GNG and impacts on broadcast stations

A few things I think are worth noting with broadcast stations vis-a-vis the GNG:

• We have a good number of pages that likely wouldn't pass the GNG, particularly in the realm of low-power TV stations. A good example is W15EB-D, a classic "diginet tree" with little history and no media coverage. W15EB-D would be a fantastic litmus case, especially for those editors that generally want to bring the scope of the articles in the projects closer to that which would have existed with GNG. The Philippines radio stations AfDs (in which several contributors here have been involved) would also represent a shift toward this sort of thinking.
• At least in the US, it's often easier to find coverage on local media pre-2008 than it is after due to budget cuts by newspapers and shifting priorities in terms of the importance of individual local radio/TV stations.
• There is the potential for some systemic bias issues, particularly with countries (like Mexico) where there are no large trade publications and very few historic newspaper archives. We got a bit lucky with the AfD of XHEJ-FM, for instance.

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point, and articles on the community newspapers and other outlets that are helping to fill the void created by budget cuts by legacy media are likely to also be affected by such a shift.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

In my mind, GNG means that there's enough written by others about the topic to be able to write a reliable and verifiable encyclopaedic article on it. W15EB-D clearly fails that, and it appears XHEJ-FM does as well. I know other areas of the site use lists for coverage of topics that aren't eligible for their own article, I think someone mentioned in an AfD that this wasn't currently being done for broadcast media, but that's a possible solution to these under-sourced articles. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Lists are already used for full-time network affiliates, e.g. List of K-Love stations, List of Air1 stations, List of Minnesota Public Radio affiliates. Network articles that list the affiliates within the main article also essentially serve the same purpose. NMEDIA does a good job at describing when a station should have its own article or redirect to a list or a network's article. However, in many cases the information in individual articles could not be efficiently communicated in a list article. These are articles where the content is verifiable and reliably sourced, even if some of them may not meet GNG. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it does not advance the purpose of Wikipedia to wipe this information out. W15EB-D does have problematic content that is not reliability sourced, but all of the content in XHEJ-FM is verifiable and reliability sourced. How exactly would the site benefit from deleting a page like XHEJ-FM?--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

We'd make the website more reliable, for one. SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I was referring only to pages where the content is verifiable and reliably sourced. The content in XHEJ-FM's article is verifiable and reliably sourced, so no, the site would not be made more reliable by its deletion.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

There are many, many problems with that article, including lots of jumping to conclusions on the back of bad sourcing. I don't care enough to fix it, but I'm surprised it was kept in the first place. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Programming section

I'm pinging about 20 people involved in discussions over the replacement of WP:NTV with a new standalone guideline in the last 6 months to make them aware of this discussion (since NTV is still included in NMEDIA) and get a sense of how their project is proceeding (I see no movement lately at Wikipedia:Notability (television)). If it's advanced enough to go to an RfC of its own, the Programming section would likely be split out of NMEDIA altogether. @Joeyconnick, Favre1fan93, Toughpigs, Some Dude From North Carolina, Alucard 16, Some Dude From North Carolina, Amaury, Facu-el Millo, IJBall, YoungForever, Bilorv, Kingsif, TheDoctorWho, Calidum, Atlantic306, ReaderofthePack, X201, and Gonnym: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Not from NTV, or was pinged at the top, but pinging Mlaffs to the discussion. He's a prolific WPRS/TVS editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think for the most part, Wikipedia:Notability (television) is close to heading to RfC. There is still a whole section (the last one), of wording currently at WP:TVSHOW that has to be determined for any possible integration. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Going off track

I've been following this page only intermittently, but I'm getting a fairly strong sense that this initiative is going off track in a way that's going to doom its chances at the RfC. Here's my blunt assessment:

Getting any new SNG passed at this point in Wikipedia's history is an extremely uphill battle. Editors have a general sense that the notability standards are about right, so anything that seems to change them is going to get lots of WP:Broken oppose !votes. The only reason WP:Media stands any chance at passing is because it's been listed in the sidebar for ages and has significant general buy-in. If we can communicate that what we're doing with the RfC is eliminating redundancy and codifying already-existing norms (guidelines work best when they reflect consensus rather than trying to lead it), this has a chance. Making significant changes to NMEDIA right before the RfC completely throws out our only ace. I know most people here are from the broadcast project, and I'm happy that it's active enough that this initiative is getting engagement, but you can't use this as a chance to broaden NMEDIA to what you'd like, which is probably going to be more inclusive than what the broader community will accept. Our rewrite needs to be limited to tuning the wording and solving redundancies. If people at the RfC feel like giving this SNG status is a departure from the status quo rather than a codification of it, this simply won't pass. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

After the RfC pause — steps to get back on track

I've paused the RfC for 7 days so we can home in on specific improvements that are needed per the above and return a document with more buy-in to the broader community.

• Revisions to the "why separate criteria" section
• Operationalizing "established broadcast history"
• Considering a population threshold as one potential bullet point that makes a radio station likely to meet the GNG.

I invite specific feedback and proposals from the RfC contributors. I am very interested in seeing a version of NMEDIA from the point of view of Extraordinary Writ, because I'd like to engage his concerns as well. I want to reiterate here that I am committed to seeing this through and ending up with an NMEDIA that is a recognized SNG and reflects current community consensus; if I wasn't, I wouldn't be taking this step. (As has been clearly demonstrated, this means more than an elevation of the existing document but rather a rewrite of it to reflect that consensus and improve its prose.)

Pinging RfC contributors: @Neutralhomer, EpicPupper, Rhododendrites, Superastig, Robert McClenon, Firefly, SportingFlyer, Vaticidalprophet, North8000, Onel5969, ARoseWolf, Hog Farm, Tdl1060, Hut 8.5, Sdkb, Buidhe, SBKSPP, DrChuck68, ProcrastinatingReader, and Favre1fan93: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I haven't taken the deep plunge to comment on the specific criteria and so I was not knowledgeable enough to be concerned about those. My main concern that I noticed is that some of it is a wide-ranging essay that goes far outside of the bounds of media / what an SNG should cover. Aside from giving this input here, I'd be happy to boldly edit it regarding that aspect whenever that might be appropriate. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000, go ahead and do that. If this is to be an SNG, then the essay-esque components need to be culled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I did some. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

North8000, it looks good. It really removes some of the excessive overlap and restatement. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There are some structural challenges. Embedded throughout is the cautiousness, disclaimers and choices of words which are based on / acknowledge that it isn't an SNG. One idea would be an off line draft but IMO that would make it more complicated to the point where the effort could die under it's own weight. My idea which I might boldly try is to put the explanation and disclaimer in the lead .....that until/unless it becomes a SNG, these are merely opinions/recommendations. And then develop /word the rest of it as if it is a SNG. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Why separate criteria"

I think it's worth noting that media don't cover the media all that well at times, but there are sections out of lockstep with the direction of this document, notably its declaration of "as inclusive as possible" which is part of the reason I think that the current text has been poorly received. I'd like to see specific suggestions for new wording/focus of this section.

I note that one reason that NMEDIA exists as a document is because of the sheer scope of pages that need it and the often confusing nature of the field to non-topic editors. There are 57,755 transclusions of these key infoboxes, which (assuming one to a page) represent just under 1% of all non-disambiguation articles on the encyclopedia (and of which 32,806 are broadcast radio pages):

• Infobox newspaper: 8904
• Infobox journal: 9178
• Infobox magazine: 6867
• Infobox radio station: 21864
• Infobox television station: 3687
• Infobox television channel: 6080
• Infobox broadcasting network: 1175

This does not even include relevant pages that do not have infoboxes.

• The best thing you could do here is provide several examples of articles and/or AfDs that would fall under this and not GNG. I like to visualise exactly what will be allowed in if the proposal passes. For two reasons: first, to decide whether this SNG is really necessary or if it's redundant to the GNG, and second to decide whether those prospective articles are still of a good quality. The examples given at the RfC makes me think the aim of this SNG is to loosen the 'independent' requirement, a bit like the academics SNG, so that FOI requests and government sources can be used to demonstrate notability. But at those examples given, even then, there was a lot of unsourced prose (perhaps even the most of it, bar the basics). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think there's general consensus a NMEDIA guideline would be fine, but SNGs are typically written to predict the GNG. I don't have any issue with writing a clear SNG that users at NPP can easily apply even if it overlaps 100% with the GNG - often these use cases are helpful for articles where English isn't the primary language. Some of the examples at the RfC are on their face prime candidates for deletion for failing GNG, though, and I don't want to see an SNG be so expansive that they would be included. SportingFlyer T·C 11:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

  In that case, examples of articles where evaluating against this SNG is easy but against GNG hard, but still passing GNG, would be helpful. I'm not going to vote to support a potentially redundant guideline; that would just be WP:CREEP. The SNG needs to prove it is solving a real issue, IMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would prefer to write WP:Notability more universally and then eliminate all SNGs. Given that that is not possible right now, my own view is based on WP:How Wikipedia notability works which is that SNG's defacto "loosen" the standard and that any topic which doesn't have speficic SNG criteria is basically discriminated against, and so I think media should have a SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'll grant that the relationship between SNGs and GNG isn't always well understood, but SNGs really do have concrete value as supplements to GNG. It's true that some people believe that the rule is "as long as the article claims that its topic passes the SNG for its class of topic, it's automatically exempted from having to have any GNG-worthy coverage" — but that's emphatically not the case, because articles can be and have been created that falsely claim to pass an SNG that the topic actually does not pass. (Musicians claiming chart hits they never really had, writers claiming award nominations they never really got by whitewashing the distinction between "actually made the shortlist" and "was submitted by its publisher for consideration", fake radio stations claiming to pass NMEDIA when they really existed only in the creators' imaginations, etc.) So in reality, even with an SNG in place the notability claim still has to be supported by some evidence of reliable source coverage before the SNG is actually passed.
  SNGs don't exist to exempt topics from having to show reliable sources — they exist to clarify what is considered a valid notability claim so long as it's supported by reliable sources. Before we wrote NPOL, we used to see readily verifiable Australian and Canadian and British MPs nominated for deletion on the grounds that they were only backbenchers rather than cabinet ministers, and US legislators (both in Congress and at the state level) nominated for deletion on the grounds that they were never a party leader. Before we wrote NMEDIA, we used to see major market radio and television stations and newspapers nominated for deletion on the grounds that they were local outlets which didn't have a national audience. And on and so forth: before SNGs existed, we used to see very clearly notable topics regularly listed for deletion because of subjective opinions on what even counted as a notability claim in the first place.
  And conversely, even GNG itself is subject to a lot of interpretation: some people will argue that GNG is automatically met the moment a topic has two footnotes in it, regardless of the context in which those footnotes exist. In AFDs on political candidates, for example, it's quite routinely argued that since the candidate has some campaign coverage, GNG has been passed and NPOL's rule about candidates not being inherently notable is irrelevant — except that the problem with this reasoning is that every candidate can always show some campaign coverage, meaning every candidate would always pass GNG, so our entire goal to not be a repository of campaign brochures for unelected political candidates would automatically be a lost cause if campaign coverage were enough to confer permanent notability on a candidate all by itself.
  And we've seen people try to argue that GNG had been passed because the topic had one or two pieces of human interest coverage in their local newspaper, in contexts that had nothing whatsoever to do with our notability criteria at all. So GNG isn't just "media coverage exists = GNG" — it does test for the context of what the coverage is being given for, and discounts some coverage as not contributing toward GNG if it doesn't exist in an SNG-worthy context.
  And pursuant to that, WP:NEXIST also comes into play: as much as we may wish they did, Wikipedia editors don't always put any effort into actually finding and using all of the best sources that a topic actually has — there have been lots of articles that looked like they failed GNG due to the poor state of sourcing present in the article, but actually were repairable with better sources. So even here, the rule is that if the article is making a valid notability claim that would pass the SNG for their class of topic, then you need to check whether better sources are available to fix the article with WP:BEFORE actually nominating it for deletion. NPOL doesn't confer a presumption of notability on poorly sourced national or state/provincial legislators because they're exempted from actually having to have any reliable source coverage — it confers a presumption of notability on poorly sourced national or state/provincial legislators because they always do have reliable source coverage but Wikipedians haven't necessarily always put in the effort to find all of it. And here too, while there can be exceptions sometimes for really rinky-dink outfits, media outlets often do have better reliable sources than Wikipedians have actually attempted to locate and use.
  So, in reality SNGs and GNG work together, not at cross-purposes: passage of an SNG has to be supported by some evidence of GNG-worthy coverage that verifies that the claim to passing the SNG is actually true, and GNG still requires that the coverage exists in noteworthy contexts (i.e. supporting a notability claim that would pass an SNG) before it counts as GNG-worthy coverage. It's true that some people think it's "either GNG or an SNG", but that's really not the case. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: NMEDIA even explicitly says that nothing in NMEDIA is meant to be understood as exempting a topic from having to cite any actual reliable sources, so it's clearly not intended to confer exemptions from GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: For better or for worse, WP:Notability specifically says that an article meeting the SNG does not need to meet the sourcing GNG. But then in turn the SNG's do have (non-operative) wording that gives deference to the sourcing-GNG. So GNG does have primacy, but it is not as simply absolute as you describe. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, that would also be very outdated wording in GNG, then, because we discovered a long time ago that people and organizations will make false claims about themselves to secure inclusion in Wikipedia, and we have become much clearer about the fact that no matter what an article claims, the claim has to be supported by reliable sources that verify the accuracy of it before it actually counts as a notability claim. So even GNG really shouldn't be saying that articles don't have to have sources if they're claiming passage of an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm with you in spirit even if I might have several quibbles on the details. BTW I wrote Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works to describe the current practice. If one disagrees with it, understanding it is a starting point for changing it. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Defining "established broadcast history"

This came up several times and should be done, but I'm not sure how that looks to provide increased precision.

An established broadcast history has always been, at least the way I understood it, that the station received not only (per the FCC, CRTC calls it something different) their Construction Permit but their License to Cover. What the first means is the station was given permission to be built. That means the tower went up, transmission facilities were put in, transmitter was installed, even a studio was built if one wasn't available (for very new stations). The second allows the station to begin broadcasting. This is the biggie. Without that, the station is never legally, technically on-the-air. It is just "on paper" and has never, ever met the spirit of NMEDIA even under it's current writing. But with a License to Cover, that means the station is legally broadcasting a signal.

Now, that said, what are they broadcasting? If it's a community format, say Rock music. Awesome. That's NMEDIA covered, even under current writing. If it's a K-Love rebroadcaster, that's basically a full-powered translator (even if it's an FM station) and is a redirect....even under the current writing of NMEDIA. That's been my understanding of "established broadcast history".

A station must have a construction permit, a license to cover (otherwise it's a pirate), and a format that is not a rebroadcast of a network like K-Love or similar programming. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm reading historically and it seems this was the intent of the wording. I know you'd support it Neutralhomer, but how would other editors take to this: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

An established broadcast history; the station must have been constructed and begun broadcasting, not merely having been authorized for construction.

That is, basically, what I said in a much more condensed form. :) I knew you'd write it better than I ever could. :D

I think, historically, that has been universially accepted. Even I have accepted that as something that just is. Unless that second application, the license to cover, is in there, it's not technically on the air and then it all determines the programming. So, really, it's two-ponged. But, yeah, I think it reads well. I'd like to hear what others think like @Bearcat and Mlaffs: and others, but I think this will be accepted as it is now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat and Mlaffs: Pinging because editing of the existing ping doesn't work. Who I'm particularly interested in hearing from on this are the editors who are less on the inclusionist side of things, tbh. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew once you sent it, you couldn't edit it. But I sent it initially as a user, not a ping. Oh well. :) I like their opinion (mostly cause we haven't heard from them yet) as they do a lot of the GNOME-ish work on the US and Canadian pages. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's correct that the intent of "established broadcast history" was always that the station was actually on the air, as opposed to existing solely as an unlaunched license. I'm not super familiar with the term "license to cover" other than having seen it sometimes in AFD discussions, as that's an American FCC terminology that isn't used in Canada, but it's fundamentally right that the intent was always that the station has actually launched. Thing is, there have been stations in both Canada and the United States (and presumably in other countries as well, though I know far less about them) which received licenses to broadcast, but then failed for one reason or another without ever actually getting on the air, and we don't generally need to retain an article about a broadcast station that technically existed on paper but never actually broadcast a signal to the public.
That said, I wouldn't necessarily object to rewording it, because this has been misinterpreted a few times in the past: I do remember one AFD where the nominator seemed to link the word "established" to establishment in the elite power sense of the term, and argued that a station didn't pass that because the article wasn't showing a reason to deem the topic as one of the ten most uniquely important radio stations in the entire history of recorded sound — which, needless to say, would be a ridiculous criterion and has never been the intent. Bearcat (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Just to note, I used the US/FCC version "license to cover", Canada/CRTC calls it a "Letter of Authorization". But, basically, it's the permission to begin broadcasting.

Personal note, I, though, always waited for an actual notice from the station (even if it be their official Facebook or Instagram, better than nothing), a newspaper article, or something from the reporting sites (ie: RadioInsight, etc.) saying a station was on the air before publishing a new article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion has grown some legs. Nice... I'd suggest one tweak to Sammi Brie's wording above:

An established broadcast history; the station must have been constructed, begun broadcasting, and received its license/authorization from the relevant authority, not merely having been authorized for construction.

I suggest that tweak because stations will often start broadcasting for a period of time before they're fully licensed. I believe the FCC calls this status "program test authority" or something similar, and it's supposed to be time limited. Generally, I'd think that a station that gets to this point would actually launch and become an ongoing concern, but I don't think we'd want the article until it's fully licensed, and I know we've bumped up against the problem in the past. Mlaffs (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Mlaffs, that'd be fine; I'm probably going to substitute the words "permanent operating authorization" for "license/authorization". (I note that in Mexico, the concession is awarded prior to approval of technical parameters and construction, which is why I was trying to avoid such a mention of license/authorization at that time because I'm trying to write the new text in a more generalizable way than the old NMEDIA). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Population threshold

Neutralhomer suggested a population threshold and came up with the number of 2,500. That seems a bit on the small side for me...would 10,000 or 25,000 make sense? Remember that the idea of the threshold is to determine a likely "proxy" for an article that would under most circumstances meet the GNG.

So is this intended to be the population in the specific city the station broadcasts from, or for the entire broadcasting range? I can't quite tell. Since the range for most broadcast radio stations unless they're super low-watt generally at least covers a couple counties, the broadcasting range for most stations that aren't bush radio stations in Alaska will presumably exceed 2,500. Hog Farm _Talk 04:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I'd opt for the latter, not counting streaming, of course. I think the question is best worded is "at what minimum number of people covered is a radio station a lock to meet GNG"? I note that, for the US, we've had luck even working on small-town station pages, such as with some of my DYKs and the AfD rescue of KWBG; this might be harder with fewer sources in other countries given the same general situation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I pulled 2,500 out of thin air. Mostly I was using that number with rural stations in mind. Take KMMR in Malta, Montana (population, 1,997) for example. Phillips County, Montana, for which Malta is the county seat, has just 4,253 people. KMMR is the only radio station in the entire county. So, 2,500 would be for rural stations as their threshold. We could say 3,000, but even that is pushing it. 10,000 would be cutting a LOT of stations that are just too rural and communities that are just too small. While we don't have editors from there (I don't think), places like Malta exist in the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, hell the entire Midwest, and into the Rocky Mountain west.

My idea for Alaska Bush stations is because their coverage areas will never meet any population cap we set. Stations like KUHB-FM in St. Paul (population 479), KCUK-FM in Chevak (pop. 938), KZPA-AM in Fort Yukon (pop. 583), KHKY (FM) in Akiachak (pop. 585), KHYG-FM in Hydaburg (pop. 376), KSKO-FM in McGrath (pop. 346), and not-even-close-to-last KYMR-FM in Metlakatla (pop. 1,405). These places will always have very low populations, some 300+, some near 1,000. So, special criteria should be applied for these stations. Stations in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Kodiak, Sitka, Ketchikan, and the Kenai (the major population centers) would not apply.

My other idea is for low-power FM stations or LPFMs. These stations are designed to broadcast to a small population, sometimes a large city and sometimes a small town, but a restricted area. These are 100 watt or less signals, with a very WIDE range of programs which very from station to station. Yes, some carry programming like Radio 74, EWTN Radio, and LifeTalk Radio, but others like WRIR-LP in Richmond, Virginia carries a schedule with shows that air programming that vary from local and national politics, women's politics, LGBTQIA+ topics, global music, music of all kinds, local sports, programming for kids, a sci-fi movie review with local film makers, STEM programs, and an insane amount more. But they cover a MAJOR city...while KBWG-LP serves 1,016 people of Browning, Montana. Browning is Capital of the Blackfeet Nation, in case you are unfamiliar. KBWG is the only station within 60+ miles of Browning. This is the lifeline for the town and the community. Playing local sports, music (both Native American and your usual fare), topics affecting the Blackfeet Nation, and more. So a rule applied to one LPFM like WRIR-LP might hurt another like KBWG-LP or KFSL-LP (the latter serving Fossil, Oregon, population 473). A special criteria for LPFMs should be created.

Of course, I am open to suggestions on these, but these are the full, drawn-out versions of my ideas. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, remember, we aren't going to make everyone happy. That isn't our goal. We can try and be all inclusive here, but not everyone is going to like this. We have to make NMEDIA/NRADIO all inclusive for the articles. Articles first, !votes second. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Just clicking on five of those articles about rural radio stations at random, none of them pass WP:GNG "on their face" (meaning the sources in the article - much less NORG, which arguably applies as well.) I won't send them to AfD (especially since they might with more coverage) but they really aren't good examples of where we should set the limits of a SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Hence why there should be special criteria for Alaskan Bush (and LPFM) stations. These stations would never meet any criteria we would set forward.

I don't like the fact that I give examples to an editor and you see them as targets for AfD. That's highly concerning. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

These stations would never meet any criteria we would set forward Then they shouldn't be stand-alone articles, and should probably be redirected to a list. I'm not going to send them thru myself - that would be pointy - but this is the clearest admission WP:NMEDIA is being designed in search of an exemption for these sorts of articles. SportingFlyer T·C 10:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: It's been explained to you no one, anywhere on Wikipedia, redirects to a list. So stop suggesting it. Since you haven't taken part in any (or very little) of the discussion, you have missed out on the reasoning. So, please, take your "clearest admission[s]" bologna and walk it back until you do. Because this attitude isn't helping anyone. You have made it very clear where you stand on this subject. Either help make this a better discussion, a better rewrite, or take your leave. Your !vote and voice has been counted and I highly doubt anything anyone says or does will change your mind. So, do you want to help the discussion? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

We redirect things to lists all the time, and I do believe I am helping the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have never seen an article redirected to a list. Respectfully, I don't believe you are helping. It's basically "stonewall", "AFD", "move the goalposts". That's not help, that's hinderance. I'm sorry, but that's my view. Maybe if I saw a little more compromise, some give and take, I might change that view, but I haven't seen it yet...and as I said above, I don't think I will. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, there are rather often redirects to lists about topics that are under the notability threshold. Some general examples follow: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latias and Latios Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NGC 1016 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyola Jesuit Secondary School, Malawi Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Ronald P. Guzman Medical Center. In the broadcast topic space, we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBUN-CA, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WPDN-LD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greatest Hits FM96, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYAZ-TV and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Wave (2nd nomination). SportingFlyer has the right idea here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I was never aware of this, but I do disagree with it, but I do apologize. I think it's bad in practice as it doesn't give any proper any information to the reader. I mean, one could argue KHKY (FM) has plenty of sources (I know, I edited the page) and for a town of 627, 18 sources is probably far more than average and way more than you will ever see on a typical article anyway. I think that's pretty damned good. :) The rest, I am but one person. If SportingFlyer wants to help, I'm more-than-willing to offer up where some very helpful sources are and can be found, plus some templates that will help him on his way. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a hard figure for number of people covered is a good idea, but if it is then it definitely needs to be based on more than just the rural United States, or even just the United States for that matter. Malta the country has a population of half a million in an area of 122 square miles, so more than 100 times the population of Phillips County, Montana (mentioned above) in an area 42 times smaller. I suspect that just about every radio station in Malta is covering the entire country and will easily clear every metric suggested above, which means every radio station in Malta is easily notable. Most of the entries on List of radio stations in Malta don't have articles and the ones which do are largely very short stubs which don't cite independent sources. Does it make sense to say that all these stations are very likely to pass the GNG? I highly doubt it. Hut 8.5 09:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Hut 8.5: The population idea came up because "Has a large audience" was changed to "Is in a major media market". Even SportingFlyer and I agreed that "media market" probably wasn't the best choice of words. My point of contention was "what is a major media market?" Top 20? Top 10? Top 5? That's when I suggested the population cap with the Alaskan Bush and LPFM station exceptions. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• IMO, "broadcast area" seems to be a more accurate term. It doesn't need to be major or minor, as long as the primary coverage is a metropolitan area or a town/city or perhaps a certain part of a state/province. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm trying to think of a useful size definition of "broadcast area" that will be useful for NPP and makes a good bright line. Of course, stations in areas smaller than that can still meet the GNG if sourcing is proven. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Superastig and Sammi Brie: I guess that would it full circle for me, at least. As long as the station has a license (FM, AM, LP) and is not Part 15 or Carrier Current, then it has a large enough "broadcast area" in my mind. We might be getting hung up on this population/broadcast area thing....which is admittedly my fault. I know we need a baseline there, but couldn't we just say "has a legal FM, AM, or LPFM broadcast license" (Sammi can write that better than I can). Translators are being moved, if I'm not mistaken, under their parent stations, so that takes out that issue. So we are lessening some of the glut, but not the rural stations. Less red tape, no deletions. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Question How would population be determined? Is it the population of the media market? the county? what if the station isn't receivable in the entire county? In the instance of KMMR, it is clearly not receivable in all places in the county (here's a map). So, I don't really think a population requirement is the way to go.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Rusf10: While the FCC LMS website is a very comprehensive website, their mapping leaves something to be desired. Radio-Locator or RecNet is far superior in their mapping as you can actually see county lines. Basically, KMMR serves Central Phillips County in Montana, though I would venture to say it serves the entire county since Phillips County is a flat county in elevation. I am open to suggestions. I don't think a population requirement is a great idea either, but it was the first thing I pulled out of my head. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference to audience size in NMEDIA has actually never been taken or applied all that seriously in discussions on the notability of radio or television stations. In reality, it's just a phantom remnant of a time before Wikipedia applied its contemporary rule against inserting arbitrary size cutoffs into notability criteria — but it's never really been defined or applied at all, and because Wikipedia does have the rule about arbitrary size cutoffs in notability criteria, I'd prefer to just poleaxe it entirely rather than trying to define it now.
Example: on trips back home to visit my parents, I used to be able to regularly tune in a couple of exurban rimshot stations from outside the city. (I'm assuming I still could, because the stations still exist, but they never blanketed the whole city and neither of my parents live in my childhood home anymore.) The thing being that under the population criteria being discussed here, these stations might fail if the cutoff was "population of the community of license itself" — at 2.5K they'd pass, at 10K one would pass and one would fail, and at 50K they'd both fail — but since they were getting into part of the bigger city they might pass if the cutoff was "population of the overall broadcast range". But the problem is that if you look to population of the broadcast range, there aren't necessarily any sources that clearly and unequivocally tell you what that is in order to determine whether a station passes it or not — for the most part, it can be determined mainly by anecdotal observation.
A coverage map would certainly confirm my assertion that CJJM-FM and CKNR-FM can be heard in parts of Sudbury, but it would fail to tell you the population of the portion of Sudbury that they get into in order to determine whether that gets the broadcast range over 50K or not. (You'd basically have to cheat the criterion with an "if the station gets into any part of the big city at all, then it's automatically deemed to include the overall population of the entire big city instead of trying to suss out the population of whatever smaller portion of the city actually falls inside signal range" provision.) There just isn't always a clean and unambiguous way to determine whether a station would pass an audience size criterion or not — for big city stations it's inherently obvious, but for more rural smalltown stations there just isn't always a way to tell. So it's just not a good test, and should really just be removed rather than being more precisely defined. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Bearcat, I think that's a fair point. We've had a good amount of discussion about this particular parameter and I think we've all kind of reached an agreement that it is unworkable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bearcat and Sammi Brie: After hearing everyone's replies and then responding, I've seen that there isn't a good number. You go any lower and you might as well not have a number at all. Any higher and you are cutting rural stations. Bearcat is right, there isn't a magic number and it isn't workable. It's my idea and even I think it's time to think of a new one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:45, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Bearcat. It's hard to estimate the amount of audiences for every station, even if we depend on the station's TPO or ERP or its coverage map. Not all stations in a certain broadcast market or area have the same coverage. Some of them have wider coverage, some of them cover part of a certain market, some of them overlap with other markets. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)