Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WBCQ (SW)

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 keep. There is a consensus that the subject meets WP:BROADCAST. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBCQ (SW)

[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)

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines for companies and It has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Cox wasan (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few well-known American shortwave stations yet; yup, it's become a very niche station as streaming has basically turned the entire shortwave band into a never-ending camp meeting band, but it's FCC licensed (see WP:BROADCAST; nominating this as a company isn't appropriate) and known well among radio enthusiasts. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WBCQ is known widely among shortwave and DX listeners like myself and others in Europe who occasionally hear it floating in from across the pond. As noted by Nate, it falls under the notability guidelines for WP:BROADCAST, since it has an established broadcast history (aired for more than 21 years). The article should be retained on this site. Dane|Geld 14:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:BROADCAST. Furthermore, references have been added to the article. WBCQ has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROADCAST.Stereorock (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , Agree with above, passes WP:BROADCAST. Alex-h (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article. It's passes WP:BROADCAST guideline but the weak coverage in reliable and independent sources is a real weakness for the Article.Forest90 (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has significant coverage, passes WP:BROADCAST, and can be improved to increase reliability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Passes WP:BROADCAST. William2001^(talk) 21:58, 2 July 2019 (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.