Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big 106.2


 * 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The result was   Keep nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 1:10, November 3, 2008

Big 106.2

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Withdraw, although I still believe it would have been better to ha ve waited until the station was on air to start the article. Station may become notable in future, but currently this fails WP:CRYSTAL and is on the verge of being spam. Any currently available sources will most likely be press releases and hence not independent. dramatic (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only 6 Google hits, absolutley no notability. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, two NZ Herald articles specifically on this station already: BIG FM small fish in a large pool, Big name elbows on to the airwaves. XLerate (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't find these for some reason - I guess this shows the limitations of relying on Google. If a second source of coverage is found, then that would be enough for a keep.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Google doesn't find these for some reason - I guess this shows the limitations of relying on Google. If a second source of coverage is found, then that would be enough for a keep.--Michig (talk) 11:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Coverage by a major NZ media outlet satisfies notability. There's no rule that says we need to have a second source if the first source is reputable on its own. 23skidoo (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * True, but to quote WP:N, "Multiple sources are generally preferred".--Michig (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also true, but it says nothing about only a single source being grounds for considering deletion. What you cite is a "best case scenario" circumstance. 23skidoo (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The article itself seems to contain unsourced speculation. Is it Original Research? Seems to meet notability for NZ but needs better referencing or some of the unsourced parts removed for now. NZ forever (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. If they have been licensed by the government of New Zealand to broadcast on a dedicated FM radio frequency to the biggest population centre in the country, they inherently meet WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Gene_poole (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the stations website at http://www.bigfm.co.nz now contains sufficient information about the station which has now launched in Auckland, have just updated article to reflect this. As more information becomes available we can expand on it. Bhowden (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs some work done to it such as expanding with the 2 news items listed above the AfD used as sources. Bidgee (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2008 (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.