Talk:WPVM-LP

Initial edits

It looks like the station's new owner, Davyne Dial, has deleted the actual history of the station, leaving only what she feels is relevant to her cause/agenda. If this is to be used as an encyclopedia, then the old article should be brought back with the new info topping it off, as the actual history of the radio station is what is important. There has been much controversy over the last 2 years regarding the station, a full history seems important in this case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandycharlynn (talk • contribs) 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Brandycharlynn, it appears that the only way I can answer this concern is with a 'disputed' tag on the article (which I have added now). Please read it. It invites a visit to this talk page where the POV differences you mention can be discussed. Any of this would require citations / reliable sources to cover what you state is 'much controversy' and new info v. actual history. This is way too vague and nebulous for me as a careful editor to get involved in reverting to an old version. By adding the maintnance tag and replying to you I am closing this as having been answered for requested help. Please understand that in the way this is worded, we need to obtain much more substantiated detail. As it stands now, this is just a vague content dispute without facts. Hence the tag. Wishing you the best, Fylbecatulous talk 13:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of defamation suit paragraph

Exercising WP:Be Bold, I removed the paragraph on the defamation suit based on WP:Notability, WP:Relevance, and then concerns over WP:Biography of Living Persons. Since none of the sources posted regarding the court case mention WPVM other than its tie to the plaintiff, I fail to see the notability or relevance of the suit in connection with the station's history. For example, the motivation of the defendant could well be related to other activities of the plaintiff - we simply don't know. In addition, the possible WP:Conflict of Interest charged in the Multiple Issues template raises all of this to another level - for example, is Wikipedia being used as an instrument in the controversies in Asheville? So without sources to tie the station to the court case, I believe we need to err on the side of caution regarding the people involved. Meanwhile, for everyone's convenience, here are the sources:

• Facebook defamation leads to $500,000 settlement in Asheville
• American Bar Association coverage of precedent setting defamation lawsuit settlement
• IJR Article on defamation lawsuit

I understand some editors may disagree with the removal, but I believe this should be discussed before reinstating or re-working the material in question. Allreet (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you @Allreet:. I removed the paragraph again. Apparently, it was added back a few months ago but one of the subjects of this article added it back. I included back the Mountain Express article which discusses several other allegations. Cheers, Meanderingbartender (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please remove defamatory links.

"Amid heated controversy, WPVM charts a new course". Mountain Xpress. Retrieved November 4, 2015.
"Local Radio Station WPVM Experiences Hostile Takeover". ashevilleblog.com. Retrieved May 29, 2015.

Insert

• What I think should be changed:
• Why it should be changed:
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Davyne Dial (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done These sources seem to be reliable sources and thus their inclusion is warranted. Wikipedia does not remove sources just because they are negative towards a company. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)