Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KITM-LD (2nd nomination)

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. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 19:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KITM-LD

KITM-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The most previous AfD resulted in the keep outcome but that was in 2020, when notability thresholds for television stations were much looser than today. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hawaii. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Community consensus is clear that television stations and channels must meet at least WP:GNG therefore requiring significant coverage in secondary sources. This was a short-lived, low-power station with no indication of notability. No secondary sources at the article and I'm not finding anything else significant. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Suffice it to say, it is obvious from the way the first nomination played out that the 2021 RfC that affirmed GNG as the actual notability standard in this topic area and consequently rewrote BCASTOUTCOMES was still in the future. FCC records, databases, and the station's own website are not GNG sources (especially the station website, a non-independent source) and cannot be the only sources in any article — and as usual, this is the usual run-of-the-mill 2010s-started LPTV where the chances of there being the required significant coverage are also virtually zero. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Wcquiddich and the impossibility we could ever source this station's actual schedule; this was a clear 'run for fun' distraction for a mainlander who retired to the islands. Nate • (chatter) 18:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, no article.Danubeball (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WCQuidditch, no sources and really cant be. Fails GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unsourced article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Waqar💬 18:14, 6 May 2024 (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.