Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WUVI-LD

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WUVI-LD[edit]

[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)

Another non-notable LPTV. Just two sentences in the whole article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable TV. Not supporting its deletion because it used only two sentences but because I can't find sources that demonstrate its notability. if articles such is this is allowed then all non notable media channels would be dumped here. Metroick (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found to show this subject meets the GNG. A note to the nominator though, just because the article is a stub is not a reason on its own to delete. User:Let'srun 15:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable TV lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: one primary source does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2023 (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.