Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XHQC-FM

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 speedy keep per Speedy Keep Criterion 2 as this nomination was unquestionably brought to disrupt. The nominator was indefinitely blocked today as a sockpuppet of a user blocked last month for disruptive behavior.  Rebbing  22:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

XHQC-FM (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)

Not enough references Xx C00l G$Y x#^t@lk 05:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our standard for radio stations is that if they are licensed (and you can type in "XHQC" in the IFT Public Concessions Registry and get this station, so it is), they are notable. The references here are the concession registry for the station's ownership history and the IFT tables for technical parameters and current concessionaire. Raymie (t • c) 06:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Raymie: I wasn't particularly familiar with the guidelines for notability of radio stations, so I had a look around and it seems that the RFC here determined that the "automatically notable if licenced" guideline doesn't apply outside of North America, and that other radio stations should be judged by WP:GNG. Should WP:BCASTOUTCOMES be considered consensus, it seems like there's some degree of contention over the issue? I'm honestly asking, I am not familiar with the topic.—  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Crh23: Radio in Mexico is more like radio in the US and Canada than it is radio in other countries; there aren't a lot of strong networks, most stations are locally programmed, etc. The smaller number of stations per city is mostly due to outdated technical guidance which is being replaced soon. Raymie (t • c) 17:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information for many radio stations, particularly Canadian & Mexican stations, can be very limited or difficult to find. Some information is certainly better than none, and this article definitely provides valuable information which may not be available anywhere else. The IFT reference verifies some of the licensing information, and the article gives a good basic background.Rudy2alan 13:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Not enough references" is not a sufficient reason for deletion. That's a reason to add references, not to delete the article. If you think that such references cannot be found, that's another story and you (Xx Cool Guy7202 xX) will have to explain why you think that's the case. Gnome de plume (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs improved sourcing (tagged as such now), but keep per WP:BCASTOUTCOMES.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:18, 13 April 2016 (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.