Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWTM

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DWTM[edit]

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

Unremarkable organization. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the top radio stations in Metro Manila so this station is notable enough in the Philippines. Also, I noticed that before this AFD was created, the nominator deleted most of the content of this article, even after other editors have added proper citations on the context claiming the article's "lack of notability". -WayKurat (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This almost sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT Argument, basically per WayKurat. --Church ^Talk 00:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Radio stations do not need to be more "remarkable" than other radio stations to qualify for Wikipedia articles — all they need do is be properly referenceable as satisfying WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations: they're properly licensed by the appropriate regulatory authority, they're on the air rather than existing only as unlaunched licenses, and they actually originate some portion of their own original programming rather than operating solely as a rebroadcaster of another radio station. I'll grant that this does need some further referencing improvement, but it does meet the baseline requirements. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ORG is not an appropriate guideline for this nom. Meets WP:BROADCAST easily, but does need improvement per Bearcat. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 17 February 2018 (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.