Deletion of CHMA-FM

Comment: The station is described in third party media as the "campus and community radio station" for Sackville, New Brunswick, and the Stereophonic Festival described in the article also receives independent media attention.http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/salon/article/1254049http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/magazine/article/537900http://radio3.cbc.ca/#/blogs/2009/1/-Wintersleep-and-Plants-and-Animals-Headline-Stereophonic-6  This 2007 CBC Radio 3 interview describes the station as being "in the national spotlight this week for its 4th annual Stereophonic musical festival."http://radio3.cbc.ca/#/blogs/2007/1/Stereophonic-January-12th-20th  Gets a bit of press in a 2006 ''Billboard'' article about a proposed fee's impact on Canadian college stations.http://books.google.com/books?id=UA8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA20&dq=chma+sackville&hl=en&ei=eAi_TNSPDZGosQPVwOWLDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=chma%20sackville&f=false It's a small-town outfit, to be sure, but evidently notable in that context. The article could use a trim, but I think there's enough to justify the article under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BROADCAST)

Comment: I think we'll have to agree to disagree here.  I am interpreting the guidelines in this case rather than precedent - and I believe the article does not meet the guideline, even if |other articles exist or |prior AfDs have gone against these guidelines for whatever reasons.  In my opinion, using '''only licensing''' as terms for notability means that all information in the article (except the call letters) can be sourced from the station's self-produced press and other sources which may or may not contain actually reliable information.  (Because these sources are fine as secondary sources once notability has been established...)  If we choose that precedent over the notability guidelines at  or , it brings into question the accuracy of '''all''' radio-related articles on Wikipedia.  This is why the guidelines exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE||WP:WAX||WP:GNG||WP:BROADCAST)

Comment: Whether or not |other articles exist, this article fails to |verify through reliable sources either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming.  This is the requirement for radio stations in WP:BROADCAST
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OSE||WP:BCAST)

Comment: Don't forget about .  Also, ''original'' broadcasting is different from the ''unique'' broadcasting mentioned in 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX||WP:BROADCAST)

Comment: As a licensed broadcast station which originates a portion of its own programming, it satisfies the de facto guideline for broadcast station notability which has prevailed in AFDs for the past couple of years. In addition, per Arxiloxos, it appears to satisfy  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:N)