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. Rfreeman779 If you would like the article put into your userspace for potential future improvements, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Classic Hits[edit]

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

Really struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Tiny one-man company. Edwardx (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a couple of computers running a radio station using an over-the-air setup flirting with the Part 15 line (if this was in Brooklyn the FCC likely would've killed it as a pirate station). This is pretty much most radio stations today; doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST as it isn't licensed. Add in a WP:COATRACK complaint about the SoundExchange royalties system and you have a very wordy article for a generic Internet oldies station. Nate • (chatter) 06:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither online radio stations nor Part 15 operations get an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA just for existing — they must be the subject of enough reliable source coverage about them to clear WP:GNG. But that's not what the sourcing here is showing: except for one article in a radio trade magazine that's actually about Carolina Classic Hits, all of the content that's actually about CCH itself is referenced to primary sources rather than reliable ones, while all of the other properly reliable sources are supporting a WP:COATRACK essay about the general challenges of radio broadcasting in the 21st century while neither being about CCH nor even mentioning CCH at all. This is not what it takes to make something like this eligible for a Wikipedia article — the radio trade magazine is literally the only source here that counts for anything at all toward supporting notability, and one acceptable source doesn't count for enough by itself. Also, conflict of interest (what a shocking surprise) if you compare the creator's username to the owner's name in the article's infobox. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding the "flirting with the Part 15 line (if this was in Brooklyn the FCC likely would've killed it as a pirate station)," the station is fully compliant with the FCC's regulations and restrictions for Part 15 broadcasting. Under no circumstances, would we engage in or condone any illegal or 'pirate' operations. "Regarding the "complaint about the SoundExchange royalties system," this is simply an example of the methodology and if there is a better way to convey this information, please advise me or edit the article. This information conveyed here is in answer to the questions asked by other Internet radio broadcasters and individuals who desire to start their own station in the future. There is not an abundance of sources regarding CCH because the station is part of an industry that is just beginning to become a source of mainstream listening. CCH also serves a niche audience in that it is an older demographic than the 12-24 demographic which currently listens to Internet radio the most. These numbers are broadening as the reach of Internet radio broadens and includes in-car listening apps which are already available in some vehicles. Small (one-man) operations, especially in this form of broadcasting, are becoming more prevalent as the expense to operate a station is very low and the interest in starting a radio station by both veteran broadcasters and those new to medium with a unique form of programming to share. The fact that any operation is small has no bearing on the interest that others may have in the operation or the contribution that makes regarding entertainment and/or the conveying of information. I am totally open to any suggested editing of the article and please note that CCH is not a commercial operation or business. Advertising proceeds goes directly to licensing and the cost of streaming is paid out of pocket by CCH; we have no revenue and we have minimal expenses. CCH refers other broadcasters, potential broadcast programmers and listeners to Wikipedia to get their questions answered through this article and any supporting articles that are referenced. I have made some edits to the article as of August 6, 2017 and I welcome any further suggestions. Thank you. Rick 04:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Rfreeman779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Part 15 stations are not accorded an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NMEDIA's rules for the notability of radio stations. If a station does not have a full-fledged FCC license, then the only way it can still qualify for a Wikipedia article is if it has enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. If that's not present and can't be provided, then the station simply does not get to have a Wikipedia article at all — the facts that it's "part of an industry that is just beginning to become a source of mainstream listening", or that it "serves a niche audience", do not grant it an exemption from having to be properly sourced. Reliable source coverage is the notability test, and a thing that doesn't have that doesn't get to put itself into Wikipedia just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, and Bearcat's summation. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and it doesn't pass WP:NMEDIA. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:11, 12 August 2017 (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.