Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CMS Station Brokerage

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Station Brokerage

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

Not notable. CMS Station Brokerage lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is bombarded with sources but most do not cover this company. The article is currently a coatrack talking about a minor news event, a sale of a radio station. Current sourcing includes:

1 - no mention

3 - no mention

4 - passing mention. no coverage about CMS

5 - passing mentions. no coverage about CMS

6 - no mention

The only source of any substance is #2, a local interest puff piece about their CEO. This falls short of WP:AUD. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:Company. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response
This firm has played a significant role in the transfer of scores of radio stations across the United States and now in Canada. While there may not be many news sources which cover the 'supporting role' that a brokerage plays, it doesn't mean that the organization is not notable.

The firm's role in the sale of WDUQ was critical, and the citations that are included maybe focus on DUQ's importance, as a way of underscoring what an important sale that was, particularly in the Pittsburgh region. :5 is relevant because it shows the FCC recognized the firm as the broker for the sale.

2 is not a puff piece as Duffbeerforme claims. While regional in scope, The Pittsburgh_Business_Times is a credible news source.

Especially because radio stations serve a public interest, the agent who helps to transfer ownership of stations from one entity to another is certainly relevant. This article should not be deleted. Coffeepants (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "While there may not be many news sources that cover ... it doesn't mean that the organization is not notable." Oh yes it does. In Wikipedia, that is precisely what "notable" means. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I would reiterate that the organization is notable. The page was originally submitted for review and approved June 5. The sources quoted are legitimate. Since the proposed delete notice on June 19, additional information with citations was added. Coffeepants (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new references supplied (the first three in the article) are all the same type of thing. Brief announcements of sales in a trade magazine with no coverage about CMS Station Brokerage. All just have a passing mention, "Broker: CMS Station Brokerage." Still falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local company; the original author ~~and s.p.a.~~ fails to understand the concept of notability as used here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.