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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 00:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BROADCAST easily; on-air and broadcasting with a full schedule of programming. Nate•(chatter) 02:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: How do you figure? It requires "either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming" and I'm not seeing that here. That the station exists and broadcasts isn't enough. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Established broadcast history" is met by the fact that the station has been on the air since 1973 (as opposed to being a placeholder license that the company holds for a station that isn't actually transmitting), and "unique programming" (which means "unique" in the sense of "originating from the station's own studios", not in the sense of "radically innovative and creatively unprecedented") is fully shown here as well. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There traditionally has been a presumed notability for most broadcast stations — as long as it is verifiably backed up by reliable sources. At the time of nomination, this article actually did, for certain, fail BCAST on that count — the only reference in the article at the time related to its affiliation with the St. Louis Cardinals Radio Network, and I don't think that's enough to get over the "needs sources" hump. (Whether or not we've been too lenient in general on the large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming conditions over the years may well be another matter altogether.) However, I've expanded the article a bit so that there's more of a history of the station and also considerable more sourcing (and I also pruned some stuff about the station's prior owners that weren't necessarily relevant to KJEL itself); I can't guarantee that it will definitively save the article (i.e., if it sufficiently establishes any notability KJEL might have), but it's reasonably safe to say that no matter what past outcomes for broadcast station AfDs have suggested about broadcast station notability in general, sufficient sourcing is a must if an article is to survive an AfD. --WCQuidditch☎✎ 05:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wcquidditch's improvements. Per WP:NMEDIA, a radio station is considered notable if it meets four conditions: (a) it has an FCC license, (b) it is actually in operation ("established broadcast history") and not just a construction permit that exists only on paper, (c) it actually originates at least some of its own standalone programming ("unique programming") rather than operating solely as a translator of another radio station, and (d) those three facts are reliably sourced. I'll grant that the article was weak and unreferenced at the time of nomination, but Wcquidditch has gotten it past all four conditions. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:24 on July 9, 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.