Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CILV

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 merged and redirected by Thivierr. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CILV

Delete. non-notable, station is apparently only two days old. Tufflaw 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Station may only be two days old, but the parent company is older. No less significant than other local radio stations in Wikipedia, just newer. Movementarian 02:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Thank god radio stations are still being started. -- JJay 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• merge/redirect to CILV-FM. --Rob 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep despite it being new, it has the potential to be notable and per tufflaw also. -->Newyorktimescrossword 04:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I'll still keep listening to my far superior XM. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since we seem to keep all genuine licensed broadcast radio stations. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations, Wikipedia policy explicitly permits articles on broadcast radio stations. The fact a station is two days old has no bearing on this policy. This would be a slamdunk except for one thing: I already wrote this up at CILV-FM a few weeks ago. (Even licensed-but-not-launched stations are allowed articles, if their call sign, owner, frequency, format and expected launch date are known, and Wikipedia policy also expects the radio station's article to include the -FM suffix.) Redirect to CILV-FM; I've already copied any content that wasn't already in the other article. Bearcat 17:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations is not policy, and a number of projects involve creating articles that end up being deleted (sad but true). But, you're still basically correct (in terms of defacto policy), in that AFD precedent for some time, has been to keep broadcasters (radio and TV) even if they're "just" local stations. I recently added a comment at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Precedents#local broadcasters suggesting we updated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents#Entertainment to say that such stations are now deemed notable according to more recent AFD precedent. The only reason I didn't change it myself, is I would like to see some agreement before changing it unilaterly. Nominations, like this one, are likely to be repeated if people are under the impression stations like this are being deleted (which they're not). --Rob 17:49, 29 December 2005 (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.