Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K277BS

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 redirect to KZPK. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K277BS (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)

A WP:BEFORE found no WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ORGCRIT CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 07:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a re-broadcaster with no significant independent reliable-source coverage it lakcs independent notability. Could also Redirect it to KZPK, if in fact that is what it re-broadcasts. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per NMEDIA, carries seperate programming (simulcasting an HD subchannel otherwise unheard by the listening public. in this case the HD3 subchannel) from main station (the majority of the listening public only hears the HD1 station) which makes it notable allowing it to have a page of it's own. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:09 on March 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Redirect to KZPK. One of the conditions that a radio station has to meet to qualify for its own standalone article is that there's at least some evidence that it's actually the subject of some reliable source coverage in its own right, beyond simply being able to show an FCC profile as evidence that it exists. The FCC profile is certainly a necessary source for some of the content that a radio station's article should contain — but it is not a sufficient source in its own right to get an article kept if no other real sources can actually be provided. Fundamentally, a rebroadcaster station like this should be a redirect to its originating programming source, not a standalone article. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to KZPK as per Bearcat. Not enough RS here to establish WP:NOT. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to KZPK per the above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to KZPK - plausible search term. PhilKnight (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2018 (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.