Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOWW-LP

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. then redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KOWW-LP

[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)

We no longer source radio station articles solely to databases and FCC records, since you can't meet the GNG that way — we need significant coverage. This was deleted via PROD two years ago for more-or-less that reason; it was recreated a few months later, and I had to procedural contest a new PROD on this version of the article. That said, our current standards are strict enough that I figured I'd just bring it to AfD myself. This could be redirected to the list of radio stations in North Dakota as an alternative to deletion, but owing to the double-prod a unilateral BLAR would be ill-advised. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed the PROD without realising it had previously been deleted via that process. The article currently has no secondary sources and my attempt to locate anything much useful wasn't successful. While I'm well aware we had more lenient notability standards in the past it's somewhat surprising an article with zero secondary sources was created in late 2022. AusLondonder (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list I can't even find secondary coverage, and that's a problem. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated in deletion rationale, this was previously PROD'd so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Hoping for more participation as editors consider option to Delete or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. If someone wants to create a redirect to the state list, it can be done after deletion. DrChuck68 (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not contain the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. FCC data and databases simply doesn't cut it. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2024 (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.