User talk:Davidjbrown321

Welcome!

Hello, Davidjbrown321, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 prefix:User talk:Neutralhomer/, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 prefix:User talk:Neutralhomer/

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 prefix:User talk:Neutralhomer/, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm just letting you know that I have deleted the above page as G6 (uncontroversial houskeeping): ‎ (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: talk page message inadevetantly placed in main space) ( and not WP:G1 as the patroller tagged it. It's my guess you meant to post it on a talk page somewghere. The text of your message was:

Thanks for proposing the merger, however, we think it important that Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 remain separate from WOWI-FM. One has a five year life and a different format--very different. It wants to be a separate entity.http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Progressive_WOWI-FM_1970-75_prefix:User_talk:Neutralhomer/&action=edit&redlink=1#

perhaps you would like to repost it in the right place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Kudpung for letting me know. I'd not have realized this without your message. I will keep this in mind. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page moved

Hey David, I wanted to let you know that I completed the improvements on the WOWI page, and I wanted to thank you for the John Nesci paragraph, which was done in part based on sources you'd found. I don't think the Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 page is a likely search title or worth maintaining in article space, so as a courtesy to you, I've moved it into your user space as User:Davidjbrown321/Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75. Raymie (t • c) 21:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raymie Not sure why this needs to be done. I spend a lot of time researching the information on Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 and personally I think its as pertinent as anything else on wiki. Is it a done deal? Do I have any say in the matter? User:Davidjbrown321

Well, I appreciate your interest, but I want to explain in depth why I did this.

We typically only retain one article per radio station license. I have been working for a year or more to resolve cases like this one in which a period of a station's history received its own article. We're lucky to have a deep bench of available online resources to not only solve these problems but produce better, more densely cited articles as a result.
In writing an article, I try not to place undue weight on a specific period in station history. WOWI operated as a progressive rock outlet for about five years. After the late 1974 sale to Willis, it operated as an urban outlet with significant success, particularly in the 1990s when it dominated the Hampton Roads market in ratings and billing, and has remained in that format for a full 45 years.
Much of the detail provided was some combination of unreferenced, not written in an encyclopedic tone, or not particularly pertinent to station history. (The Nesci stuff was pretty good and the sources contained therein influenced the paragraph on that trial in the revised article.) There is such a thing on Wikipedia as too much detail, and in your article, this was particularly the case with some of the talent quotes and remembrances. Wikipedia is not a web host, and while these quotes are fantastic for a fan site on WOWI, they aren't particularly encyclopedic in character.

I'd be happy to take ideas on other details about WOWI that you think are important enough to be in the new main article. Particularly if you have Virginian-Pilot archive access, which I do not (and the Daily Press, which I can access, did not take much interest in covering broadcasting in Norfolk and points south during the progressive WOWI era), you may have access to material that I do not. At some point, Wikipedia is a balancing act, one governed by standards of notability and a manual of style, and some material simply isn't suitable for an encyclopedic project. Raymie (t • c) 21:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

davidjbrown321 Raymie: No I do not have access the Va Pilot's archives. There was mention in the wiki about the Action (magazine, an Va Pilot insert) on George Kello that is included. Most newspapers didn't report on radio, as you mentioned. When I first started the Progressive WOWI-FM 1970-75 research project that took 6 years, there were only 2 sentences about that time period and I knew one of them was incorrect. I painstakingly pieced tidbits together to form a picture, and conducted an oral history of the remaining players involved. While I understand a radio license continues after it is sold and changes hands, the difference is like comparing Jupiter and a swimming pool; its a completely different animal. So will the link that you sent me https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Davidjbrown321/Progressive_WOWI-FM_1970-75 be available steadily? davidjbrown321

Yes, it should be available. Let me also address other issues that would have been more immediate:

The article title was not compliant with the Manual of Style. Even if a suitable title were found,
I appreciate you going to these lengths and your interest in this topic, but we also can't have original research. The article does cite some sources—which were helpful!—but the depth of sourcing needed to sustain this was not there. When I write radio and TV articles, and I have made more than 100 major expansions and from-scratch new articles in the last year as well as dozens of article improvements using high-quality reliable sources, I write them based on the sourcing I have: newspapers; trade publications including Broadcasting, Radio & Records and Billboard from the wonderful American Radio History website; and technical records from the FCC, which prior to the early 1980s are on scanned versions of a microfilm transfer of their old card system.

I want to be really clear. I am not in any way ignoring the time and effort you put into this! It's just that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines dictate a different course for the article itself. Raymie (t • c) 04:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]