Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KCIM

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 No consensus. Deathphoenix 01:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KCIM

Non-notable AM radio station, article is uncyclopedic (looks like a listing for the yellow pages), and the last part conflicts with WP:NOT - indiscriminate collection of information, as it's just a list of technical specifications for the station. Returns about 350 hits on Google. Delete Obli (Talk) 22:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Oh boy, a thousand watts. Ruby 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I wince in voting so, but it appears there are no non-notable radio stations, any more than there are no non-notable schools. Pity. Denni ☯ 02:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep duly licensed radio stations. But rewrite this stinker of an article from the ground up -- it's full of technical detail but I can't even figure out what format it is. Haikupoet 04:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Mind you the rewrite may be problematic......there aint a whole heckuva lot of info out there about this one... Jcuk 15:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment (more of a rant, actually): (p.s. this probably belongs somewhere on an AfD process discussion page) I've always had a philisophical problem with "keep and rewrite" votes, and I guess it goes to the heart of what AfD actually is supposed to be. IMHO what people are basically saying is that an article on the subject has a right to exist, but that this particular article in its current state isn't it. Do closing admins take that into account? i.e. if the article isn't improved by the time the AfD discussion closes are those votes counted as "delete"? The reason I ask is because there are many poor articles on good subjects that survive AfD purely based on "keep and rewrite" votes, without the rewrite subsequently taking place. This leaves those articles in the poor state they are and virtually immune to future deletion (based on it having survived AfD already). Zunaid 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or re-write per nom. Zunaid 08:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or re-write. And this means "If it gets re-written enough to be encyclopedic I'll come and change my recomendation" not "Any re-write changes this into a keep automagically." My watchlist is big, I'm happy to be pinged. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A poorly written article is not a reason to delete. It is a reason to add the cleanup tag which I just did. Vegaswikian 01:30, 31 January 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.