Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KJOS

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KJOS

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA. Just two sentences long; no infobox. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been prodded, but I suspect the creator would have deprodded it. No clear redirect target as it's unclear who operated it. Clear GNG failure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have been WP:MADEUP in 2015; CW 100+ stations never had the false callsigns the WB 100+ group did. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'll first note that, to at least some degree, the "KJOS" false call sign did carry over into the CW era, as it is listed on the network's website as such circa 2010, so there is more nominal legitimacy here than there really ought to be. (In general, the WB 100+ "call signs" seemed to persist longer in markets where The CW Plus was still carried solely as a "standard" cable channel — which in the CW era also likely meant the market's cable companies were selling the local ads as they would for cable-only networks — though they were undoubtedly relegated to program guides, Nielsen ratings, and other spots where just calling it "CW+" wouldn't be as useful. I don't think purely-cable-only CW Plus channels had local station partnerships the way The WB 100+ did, as those partnerships had morphed into digital subchannel affiliations instead.) But of course that in and of itself does not an article make these days, since the actual programming is the same as the national CW Plus feed, and sources that would cover this as a "television station" are going to be completely nonexistent. Worth noting that KJOS-TV was redirected to The CW Plus in 2011, replacing an earlier attempt at giving this "station" an article (that was mostly about what it, and The CW Plus, aired at the time), but I'm not sure if that should translate into an identical redirect here too — especially since there would still be the possibility of further recreation attempts. ("KJOS" is mentioned in section of the KAIT article about the CW subchannel it launched to replace the cable-only carriage, but that connection might be too tenuous for a redirect in that direction.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the elaboration on its history; I've conditioned myself to thinking the WB100+ stations all had "WB" somewhere in their false signs, so it was surprising to see one without it. I do agree that KAIT would be too tenuous for a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.4meter4 (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2021 (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.