Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WRCG-AM 1420

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result of the debate was KEEP, withdrawn by nominator. NTK 16:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WRCG-AM 1420

No real content. It doesn't seem significant when googling PhiJ 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep there are much smaller stations with articles on wikipedia; this is a 5000 watt station in a medium sized market. The page was lacking content but I added the station box and cleaned the page up a little so I feal it no longer warrents deletion.--Tdl1060 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per User:Tdl1060. When this article was proposed for deletion, it was a pretty poor stub, but it's showing signs of improvement now. As far as I understand, broadcast radio stations are notable. --Elkman - (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless cleaned up with evidence of how this is any more important or special than the radio station generated from K or W followed by three random letters. Stifle (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I was just about to withdraw my delete anyway, but AFDs shouldn't be closed early for a withdraw unless there's no other deletes. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep licensed radio station, per precedent. Haikupoet 03:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Haikupoet, but rename WRCG-AM or whatever the standard is. youngamerican (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- Actually it's been renamed to WRCG (AM); the link in this AfD is a redirect. Haikupoet 02:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A bit better layout is needed maybe, but otherwise it is ok... grafikm_fr 08:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can I withdraw it from AFD, or does it have to go through? It is now a lot better than when I first saw it here! --PhiJ 16:37, 13 April 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.