Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KFSC-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. ✗plicit 00:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KFSC-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Defunct LPFM that fails WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Chuterix (talk) 03:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to state list. Insufficient coverage in local media. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: given the current lack of any mention on the list of radio stations in California, that might be the path of least resistance here. Since the soft-deletion ineligibility and resulting relisting stemmed from being the recreation of a previous PROD deletion (which the recreator acknowledged as such from the start), I mostly wanted to point out the rationale from that 2007 PROD:Article does not establish notability, and low-power FM radio stations in the US are generally non-notable. That stance, which may well be in-line with how LPFM notability (or lack thereof) is perceived in 2025, wasn't exactly widely shared in this topic area in 2007–2008 (an era of lower inclusion standards that generally assumed that merely having an FCC license at all was a sign of notability, without bothering to move on to confirming whether there was any significant coverage to back that up), or to some extent at any point before the 2021 RfC that confirmed the GNG as the notability barometer here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 20 February 2025 (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.