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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result wasdelete.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk,contributions)16:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KVSJ (AM) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) – (View log ·Stats)

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

Not a station licensed by theFederal Communications Commission; it might seem like it, but KVSJ has no entry in the FCC database, and the article's text declares it aPart 15 AM station. To the layman, this basically means it uses something like atalking house transmitter (used to give info about a house from a real estate company) to push out a radio format to a limited geographical area, but is unlicensed, not meetingWP:BROADCAST.

Additionally, I have found other articles created byMartini Lewis X (talk ·contribs) in the same general area also using false call letters and Part 15 transmitters to transmit non-licensed AM and FM stations and am including them within this nomination (note the user's history; they have a long line of fictional and low-range unlicensed station articles being taken to PROD and AfD and being successfully deleted);

KQVN (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Hot 923 The Beat (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) (redirected toKRRL but originally describing another one of these Part 15 stations; is in no way related to KRRL)Nate•(chatter)14:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Shaunlovesradio2017 (talk ·contribs) has been disrupting this nomination with several confusing page moves (see each article history), along with db-author tags to SPEEDY these pages although on the surface they were not the creator; I declined them to let the seven days go through, but I'm also opening up an SPI to see if them and MLX are related.Nate•(chatter)00:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as for a few exceptions, Part 15 stations are not notable. These appear to be somebody's hobby stations; there are no 3rd party sources referencing these stations, which also violateWP:NPOV; at least one of the stations is noted in the article as being OFF THE AIR!Stereorock (talk)18:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in thelist of Radio-related deletion discussions.WCQuidditch☎✎20:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in thelist of California-related deletion discussions.WCQuidditch☎✎20:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Concur with nom and withUser:Stereorock. "Part 15 stations", if they are really adhering to Part 15 regs, can rarely be heard beyond a quarter-mile radius; a part of a city block is more common. About the only way they will ever have WP-notability is if they are running illegal power (i.e.not complying with Part 15) and there is press coverage of resulting enforcement actions by the FCC. Their supposed call letters are of course not FCC-issued (not to them, anyway; the same call may have been previously used by a real licensed station) and the whole "station" is just someone's hobby. It's like having an article on the "JEH Railroad", that being a model train setup in my attic. The quintessential example of something someone justmade up one day (including the "call letters"). And no, such articles aren't acceptable under the supposed "station"'s "brand" either. The article title isn't the point. Lack of notability is.Jeh (talk)22:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all; as previously mentioned, anytheoretical presumption of notability for broadcast stations applies solely to stations that have a broadcast license — not Part 15 stations. It's certainlytheoretically possible for such a station to have the sufficient coverage inreliable sources to satisfy thegeneral notability guideline — but I don't think such sources even exist for any of these stations. I'll also note for the record that since this nomination was created, two of the articles have been moved, in both cases byShaunlovesradio2017 (talk ·contribs):KVSJ (AM) toClassic Country 1620am, andKQVN toOldies 106.1 FM. Both articles have been moved several other times by that user prior to this nomination as well, along with numerous apparent changes in the stations' format — and, again, not one source about any of this. (I'll also add that the Internet-only "Hot 923 The Beat" doesn't appear to be related to the two Part 15s in Thousand Oaks.) --WCQuidditch☎✎00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Part 15s and Pirates are not notable UNLESS they have, as Wcquidditch said above "sufficient coverage inreliable sources to satisfy thegeneral notability guideline", and really only one pirate/Part 15 station with sufficient coverage to meet GNG comes to mind and that'sRadio Caroline (pirate), withRadio Sausalito (a VERY cool Part 15) trailing very far behind in second. None of the others even come close. The rest have gotta go as they do not meet NMEDIA, RS, or GNG. -Neutralhomer •Talk • 18:13 on February 2, 2018 (UTC)

• Delete all. Part 15 stations are not automatically deemed notable perWP:NMEDIA just because they exist, but these show no evidence ofreliable source coverage about any of them to clearWP:GNG.Bearcat (talk)20:40, 2 February 2018 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.