Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KGIG-LP

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KGIG-LP

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

No indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources. A Google News search came up empty. Prodded, prod removed by Mlaffs without improvement, so I'm bringing it here to determine whether an article with no shred of secondary coverage is worth keeping. Huon (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are four specific criteria that a radio station has to meet to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:NMEDIA: (a) it has a license from the appropriate regulatory authority (the FCC, in this case), (b) it is actually in operation rather than existing only on paper as an unlaunched station, (c) it actually originates at least some of its own programming in its own studios rather than operating purely as a rebroadcaster or relay of another station, and (d) all three of those facts are verifiable. This does need improvement, yes, but it meets all four of those conditions. The FCC records aren't by themselves enough to get the article's quality assessed up on the high end of our quality scales, but they are enough to cover off the basic keep/delete question, because they are a valid source. Again, yes, it needs more sources than this before it can actually be considered a good article — but just allowing the article to exist doesn't require any more sources than it already has. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bearcat. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Bearcat. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:09 on September 21, 2017 (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.