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.
Article with absolutely no sources. Completely promotional, containing unsourced lists of "current" presenters and program lists. No evidence of meeting
WP:GNG.
AusLondonder (
talk) 19:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not willing to provide a concrete !vote just yet, but I did remove the on-air staff and programming lists (which can be traced back to a series of IP edits in 2017), as there is a section of
WP:NOT that says that
these are not allowed in articles. That doesn't leave much, though; it is probably still going to take far more than that to justify keeping this under the standards of 2024 (it was created under the looser "standards" of 2007). (Notability is supposed to be determined by
the existence of potential sources and not solely whether or not they are already in the article, but we still at least need to know of them to prevent deletion or redirection.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as citing one database entry does not an article make. — Fourthords |
=Λ= | 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of radio stations in Pennsylvania: The inclusioninst in me (what's left of it, at least) still thinks there might be an {{
R with possibilities}} somewhere, but after further thought we really need
significant coverage to justify an article (and even the database ref — which is never acceptable as a sole source, to the extent that having a "sole source" for an entire article is acceptable at all — was not in place at the time of nomination). Until or unless that surfaces, we can't have anything more than an {{
R to list entry}}. (It is actually easily forgotten that even the pre-2021 version of
NRADIO, as [invalidly?] broad as it was at least interpreted as about notability, actually advised (seemingly to deaf ears)againstpermastubs: Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 20:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Article with absolutely no sources. Completely promotional, containing unsourced lists of "current" presenters and program lists. No evidence of meeting
WP:GNG.
AusLondonder (
talk) 19:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm not willing to provide a concrete !vote just yet, but I did remove the on-air staff and programming lists (which can be traced back to a series of IP edits in 2017), as there is a section of
WP:NOT that says that
these are not allowed in articles. That doesn't leave much, though; it is probably still going to take far more than that to justify keeping this under the standards of 2024 (it was created under the looser "standards" of 2007). (Notability is supposed to be determined by
the existence of potential sources and not solely whether or not they are already in the article, but we still at least need to know of them to prevent deletion or redirection.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 20:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as citing one database entry does not an article make. — Fourthords |
=Λ= | 15:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of radio stations in Pennsylvania: The inclusioninst in me (what's left of it, at least) still thinks there might be an {{
R with possibilities}} somewhere, but after further thought we really need
significant coverage to justify an article (and even the database ref — which is never acceptable as a sole source, to the extent that having a "sole source" for an entire article is acceptable at all — was not in place at the time of nomination). Until or unless that surfaces, we can't have anything more than an {{
R to list entry}}. (It is actually easily forgotten that even the pre-2021 version of
NRADIO, as [invalidly?] broad as it was at least interpreted as about notability, actually advised (seemingly to deaf ears)againstpermastubs: Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles.) WCQuidditch☎✎ 20:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.