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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York@54[edit]

local TV station, no external sources, no evidence of significance. Oh, and terrestrial analogue is due to be switched off anyway... Guy (Help!) 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Television stations that own a broadcast license are generally considered notable by precedent. This can be revisited when they discontinue transmissions. However, perhaps this should be sent to cleanup, since there is more than one York worldwide, and at first I assumed it was a Toronto station (York being an old name for Toronto). --Charlene 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Outcomes of past AfD's do not set precedents, and notability is not a blanket. Notability of York@54 has to do only with whether there are 3rd party sources about York@54. Pan Dan 18:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is time to establish the more detailed precedent that articles for stations in a local market with a restricted license and that do not have significant programming of their own, are nonencyclopedic. The article claims to, but provides no information. DGG 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any nontrivial reliable sources on Google, Google news, or Lexis-Nexis. The 3 sources listed in the article right now form the triumvirate: the first is not independent, the second is trivial, and the third is unreliable. Pan Dan 18:17, 11 March 2007 (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.