Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K52EG

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. Repeater stations are generally not considered notable on their own, as the consensus below demonstrates. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K52EG[edit]

Low power local ~~radio~~ television station, which displays no notability, has no useful sources. Prod contested without explanation Jac16888 (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: K52EG is a television station. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thats what i meant to put, i was looking at a radio station article before this one--Jac16888 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Keep - Guidelines are under consideration at Wikipedia:Notability (media) that relaxes certain notability standards for media. This essay points out the special circumstances surrounding media notability, especially the competition in media that prevents a television station from being covered on the radio, on other TV stations, in the newspaper, or online. I expect that this station would be covered. The station is not without sources, as the information in the article is contained in the FCC's CDBS database, which is referenced in the article. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information in the article, apart from the infobox, comes from the source given, which would appear to be a very generic, not to mention technical, source, available for all stations. Nothing in the article or the sources, such as they are, show anyway in which this article is notable--Jac16888 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. All of the information in the article can be tied to source documentation stored in the FCC database. The link given is the gateway to that information. However, I can provide direct links to the source documentation point-by-point, and will do so before the comment period for this AfD is finished. This is another reason to oppose the nom; the article can be improved. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The FCC record link has all the technical information regarding this article, to show its existence. However, no sources are given regarding Better Life's ownership prior to June 1998. I'd vote to oppose the deletion, or, at the very least, redirect to 3ABN's article. -- azumanga (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteIt apears to exist, per the FCC website, but that only satisfies verifiability requirements. More is needed to satisfy notability. Not every mast or tv/radio repeater or community low-power broadcaster is automatically notable. It only transmits to only a small area per the coverage map [1]. No evidence that the low power transmitter broadcasts locally originated programming. No news coverage whatever found at Google news [2], which is troubling. Edison (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why new guidelines have been suggested: sources that establish notability don't generally cover other media, unless they do something really drastic. In addition, when you think about it, it isn't a television station's job to make news. Admittedly, this station is a little more challenging in that it's a satellite-driven, likely automated, station with no locally-produced content, but these stations would be covered by WP:Notability (media). dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes it exists, but there is no other sources found for WP:N, which requires the sourcing, and it's sourcing guidelines trumps notabilty subpages. Secret ^account 01:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to 3ABN. LPTVs which do not originate programming should be presumed NN in the lack of meaningful history. 121a0012 (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (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.