Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEWS

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. Cirt (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEWS

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

Unlicensed Part 15 radio station with no references to reliable third-party sources to show notability or verifiability, unrelated to the real KEWS that formerly served the D/FW area. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Does not enjoy the notability protection that full power licensed radio stations (AM, FM, LP) do. NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 02:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this unlicensed micro-broadcaster does not enjoy the general notability afforded to licensed broadcasters, unable to cross the notability or even verifiability thresholds with references to reliable third-party sources. PROD tag removed by article's author. - Dravecky (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Can be renamed. Call letters can be changed. relevant for people in McKinney Texas. PROD tag removed for obvious reasons. Obviously a radio station LOOK AT ITS SITE! http://www.Mighty100.tk although its part 15 does it matter? its on the air heard by people all it lacks is a license. part 15 is LEGAL. why remove it? LibertyNT (talk) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to being unlicensed and that makes it fail WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what Neutralhomer and Dravecky imply is simply that we usually take for major licensed stations notability for granted. Nevertheless, unlicensed radio stations and pirate ones can be notable as well and they certainly do not automatically fail our general notability guideline which does not talk about radio stations and licenses at all. This one does not seem to notable, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's absolutely right; there are quite a number of articles about unlicensed radio stations in the United States and around the world. They meet the general notability guideline by dint of references to reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well I had to look but im guessing this is a reliable 3rd party evidence http://part15.us/stationlistings?page=5 and if that doesn't work there's this http://www.hobbybroadcaster.net/directory01.html not sure what doesn't make this article notable. In my humble opinion someone who is interested in stations like this would enjoy this information. LibertyNT (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, these are directory listings, partly user created, but Wikipedia isn't a directory. What is missing are in-depth refs for an article. Delete. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dug some more and finally found press coverage for this station http://www.outlawradio.us/Low-Cost-Broadcasting.html Its near the bottom. LibertyNT (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is a small blurb. Press coverage is newspaper articles, television station or radio station reports, not something from a website advertising a service. Sorry Dude, it just isn't notable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely lacking in coverage in reliable sources (per Wikipedia definition) independent of the station and its owner (please read WP:CORP). I must point out that Wikipedia is not on a crusade to delete this article because it's a pirate radio station but because of complete lack of coverage (other U.S. pirate radio stations have had their articles here because of coverage in local print and television coverage; some European pirate stations have had worldwide press coverage). Should this article survive the AfD, it's in serious need of cleanup. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Its not A Pirate Radio station. ;) LibertyNT (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If it is in the U.S. and doesn't have a license from the Federal Communications Commission, it is a pirate station. See pirate radio for further clarification. B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply True But. Under Part 15 of the FCC Codes And Regulations. Unlicensed Transmission is Legal. As Long as it complies with those rules. Pirate Radio Is Illegal. Part 15 Radio Is Not. ;) LibertyNT (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another non notable unlicensed station with no reliable sources to prove it needs its own article. Mr Radio Guy !!! 14:04, 14 September 2009 (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.