Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXFU

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 was redirect to Bandera News Philippines. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DXFU

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Would have redirected, but continues to be recreated. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which trumps any SNG in this area. SportingFlyer T·C 14:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, none of the sources in the article currently pass WP:GNG - 1-2 are simply licensing information, 3 isn't secondary, and 4 isn't anywhere close to significant coverage (it's an article on a car crash.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 1 and 2 state that the station is licensed by the NTC. Source 3 indicates part of the station's programming. Source 4 indicates the manager of the station. That said, the article is good enough to pass both WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone is thinking of arguing with me over my views, don't bother responding. I'm not gonna waste my time on arguing. My keep stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ASTIG: I'm not sure that's what you want to say; a self-confessed WP:ICANTHEARYOU will be a slam-dunk T-ban at ANI... ——Serial 11:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:: You had better have good reason to request a topic ban and evidence to back it up. If you do, you might want to request one against me as well cause.... Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I have not noticed you editing disruptively (e.g. making non-poliicy compliant statements in multiple venues and then refusing to communicate). Of course, should you choose to... (See what I just did there!) ——Serial 18:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandera News Philippines per WP:CHEAP, WP:PRESERVE, etc. The coverage is all trivial mentions, so the subject fails the GNG. And WP:NMEDIA does not reflect community consensus, so it does not constitute a valid basis for keeping the article. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ATD-R and protect the redirect against further overturning. The sources acclaimed by ASTIG are underwhelming and do not, unfortunately, amount to anything more than passing mentions, way too insufficient to demonstrate the broad, persistent coverage required. ——Serial 11:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Astig. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:GNG per Astig's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: SBKSPP (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment - simply saying something passes GNG, when it clearly doesn't, is not really a good way to win folks over to your side. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bandera News Philippines per WP:CHEAP and WP:PRESERVE. Protect redirect from tampering.4meter4 (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.