Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CJAY

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CJAY

Self-explanatory. Please delete. freestylefrappe 00:53, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Spinboy 03:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I cleaned it up a little, and I see no reason to delete it. Take a poke through Category:Radio stations or Category:Station stubs and see how many hundreds of stations with little information so far are in Wikipedia (e.g. 102.4 Wish FM, WKTG (FM)). What would make CJAY worthy of deleting? -- JamesTeterenko 06:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real radio station with CRTC certification. If the article isn't satisfactory in its current form: improve, don't delete. CJCurrie 18:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A worthy stub. --YUL89YYZ 19:06, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to see what's self-explanatory about it. Needs expansion but there are many radio and TV station articles in Wikipedia. 23skidoo 02:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as with all of the other major radio stations. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:49, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable enough radio station.Capitalistroadster 03:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• K grudgingly Fawcett5 04:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Real. K1Bond007 04:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems no worse than the other thousand stubs a day we seem to get. Xcali 06:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real radio station -CunningLinguist 08:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep please. NSR 10:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a real radio station, tis a stub... but we have lots of them! no need to delete. UkPaolo 16:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- There is no indication from this article that there's anything particularly notable about this station, but there's no harm in keeping it. My thought is that there's no point in writing an article on a cookie-cutter radio station unless it has an interesting history (if it was notable in and of itself in the present, it wouldn't be cookie-cutter), but if the article's written there's a chance someone might look it up. Haikupoet 00:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hopefully, I've added enough to make the station article useful; seems to me a leading station in a mid-size market appraching 30 years of broadcasting is reasonably notable as far as radio stations go. ByeByeBaby 04:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it isn't really so self explanatory after all Yuckfoo 16:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. sufficient explanation given above. --GrantNeufeld 15:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.