Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W41AP

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W41AP

[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)

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: in theory, there is at least an outside chance that a 32-year low-power television station, moreso than many of the newer all-diginet LPTVs, might attain the needed significant coverage to meet the GNG and merit an article. But it was also the television station of the Sandusky Register — which, if nothing else, ensures that the Register would not be an independent source here. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of nominal merger with the Register's article if there is enough sourcing to merit even that (though being tagged as unsourced since 2011 is not exactly an encouraging sign), but a separate article seems hard to justify at this point. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 30 March 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.