Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KASAPA 102.3 FM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. SoWhy 11:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KASAPA 102.3 FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable sources cover this topic. Fails WP:NRV, WP:ORGIN, and CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion of regional media entities per NOTPROMO. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not worth keeping, based on the super-short page and sources. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The station would certainly qualify for an article if it could be reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations — but the references here are a one-man PR blog and a site that appears to be a user-generated citizen journalism platform where anybody can contribute self-published "sourcing" about anything at all (for instance, compare this article's headline to its authorial byline.) We don't require radio stations to have claims of notability beyond existing as a licensed radio station that produces some original programming, but we do require those claims to be properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2017 (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.