Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Lutterworth

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Lutterworth

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

Article asserts no notability: first line of the lead says: "Radio Lutterworth aspires to become a full time community radio station......" The radio station is basically just an online radio station with no notability. They have not been able to successfully get a radio license. The radio station does not have any connections with any notable people (neither personalities or owners). Also there are zero WP:RS in the article and simply just a link to the website. There are two links within the article to articles the Lutterworth Mail website (which does not have its own article on Wikipedia.) Originally attempted PROD, but another user believes otherwise, so I have brought this to AFD -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 13:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following was added by an unregistered user on the article's talk page: This page should not be deleted as that would undermine the work of the project. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.111.207 (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I very much doubt that community radio stations (such as this) are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2012 (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.