Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K200AA

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 of the debate was delete some of this has been mentioned at KAWZ. W.marsh 18:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K200AA

Delete. It's not even a minor radio station - it's a dedicated piece of hardware set to rebroadcast a minor radio station. I think it's utterly NN. Perhaps someone can explain to us why this is important stuff, but until they do, it doesn't belong. A related article is up for AfD here. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Broadcast translators are clearly nn. Amusingly, this particular one lives about five miles north of my house. --Hyperbole 01:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, broadcast translator for a non-notable radio station --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Merge: I'm merging this information into a new article on KAWZ. KAWZ is the epitomy of a noteable radio station. It's the flagship station for one of the largest religious broadcasters in the US and has over 350 translators nationwide that relay it. Fucking deletionists. --Analogdemon (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I indeed enjoy intercourse quite frequently :) - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 02:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • You do realize that advocating deletionism should be a bannable offense on Wikipedia right? Deletionism = vandalism. Deleting any information from Wikipedia, through consensus or otherwise, is vandalism. --Analogdemon (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are considered pretty important policies on Wikipedia -- probably more so than deletionism. Also, WP:NOT is pretty well accepted policy too. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
      • You're entitled to your opinion, Analogdemon, and you're certainly welcome to bop over to the Talk Pages for the pertinent policies and try to achieve consensus for your POV. In the meantime, though, however much you love the article, it's probably safer to assume we're not here out of partisan hatred. My vote's Delete as non-notable. RGTraynor 15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
        • How much I love an article has nothing to do with this. The information from K200AA has now been merged into the article on KAWZ because verifiable fucking information should never be removed from Wikipedia, whether I like the information or not. --Analogdemon talk) 15:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Information must not merely be verifiable ... heck, I can post pictures and PDFs of my birth certificate verifying I have blue eyes. That doesn't make it notable. No one is bashing this article out of lack of verifiability, but if you feel so very strongly that this information needs to be on Wikipedia as an independent article despite its complete and utter lack of notability, you should work to change Wikipedia policy. Good luck, there. RGTraynor 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn radio station. Royboycrashfan 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to KAWZ. --Elkman - ^(talk) 05:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Already done. Thank you for your rational thought on this matter. Merging is far better than deleting. --Analogdemon (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable radio station. JIP | Talk 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Elkman. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. 17:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs).
• Weak keep, due to the fact that this is the only translator to broadcast on 87.9 MHz in the U.S., and because there is only one other station in the whole country that does so. It might just qualify as notable for being an unusual radio transmitter, certainly not for any other reason. ProhibitOnions 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, exactly what is notable about that? RGTraynor 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two other stations broadcasting at 87.9, according to the article. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Annnnnd ... what makes that notable? If all this is is a piece of hardware retransmitting someone else's signal for greater coverage, this isn't like an article on the New York Times. This is like declaring the typesetting machinery on the West Coast allowing the Times to be sold there same day notable, and creating an article based around that. RGTraynor 07:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Onions... Unique may be notable in this case. -M^ask 00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Arbusto 06:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable TgC 10:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial and uninformative in the extreme (the only translator at one specific frequency is meaningful HOW?). I can't imagine even professional radio engineers finding this of interest. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the information has already been merged into another article by Analogdemon, and the translator alone is nn for a seperate article --Krich (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — Mar. 30, '06 [07:11] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete per nom--Adam ^(talk) 16:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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.