Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DZLU

Source: 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 was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZLU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST. Onel5969 TT me 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that you will not discuss further, but you do seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:BROADCAST. That guideline says about radio stations: Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or being the originator of some programming. The station merely being stated as existing by a source is nowhere near enough to satisfy either guideline. Perhaps you are thinking of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. J947(c), at 02:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this, in common with the myriad other stubs the same user has created for Philippines radio stations, has no evidence of notability. The fact that it WP:EXISTS is irrelevant. It does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST Hugsyrup 11:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete – the keep argument is insufficient for establishing notability. However, I am a bit hesitant to vote delete if there's a chance that the book sources that PK650J947 identified actually do contain significant coverage. I would however vote against redirecting to San Fernando, La Union, as that doesn't have any information about the subject and will likely only cause confusion. signed, Rosguill talk 00:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 06:24, 15 December 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.