Deletion of WWWX

Comment: per Wcquidditch. Although Neutralhomer is correct that the base notability claims for a radio station are that it has a broadcasting license from the appropriate regulatory authority (FCC, CRTC, Ofcom, etc.) and that it originates at least a part of its programming schedule in its own studios rather than simply operating as a rebroadcaster of another station, Wcquidditch is ultimately ''most'' correct about what ''actually'' gets a radio station an article: |reliable source coverage that properly |verifies those things to be true. This was a completely unsourced two-line stub at the time of nomination, but a station is not ''exempted'' from having to cite reliable source referencing just because passage of our notability criteria for radio stations has been ''claimed'' — so what saves this isn't the statement that it exists, but the significantly improved sourcing and substance that have been ''added'' since nomination to ''improve'' the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V)

Comment: I stumbled upon this because this station is in my watchlist. What exactly makes this station different from others in Oshkosh, Wisconsin or anywhere else for that matter? It has an FCC license, and as the previous editor noted should enjoy a degree of notability due to . It has multiple |reliable sources indicating it exists. I am proud of the editors who brought in the 17 references to show this radio station exists. I would go even farther to say it is no longer a stub although I admit I have not seen the difference between when it was a stub and now. It has enough |reliable sources. It is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BCAST||WP:RS||WP:RS)

Comment: There is a |presumed notability for most broadcast stations, as long as it is |verifiably backed up by |reliable sources. I've expanded the article a bit so that it's not just a two-sentence unsourced stub; I can't guarantee that it will definitively save the article (i.e., if it sufficiently establishes any notability WWWX might have), but it's reasonably safe to say that OUTCOMES|no matter what past outcomes for broadcast station AfDs have suggested about broadcast station notability in general, articles ''must'' have sources to survive an AfD. (Furthermore, even  seems to hint that stubs with minimal content — and far too many radio station articles fall under that category — aren't really encouraged at this point. For that reason, I do ''not'' feel this justifies a speedy keep |based on the criteria; the article had been around as a stub since 2007 with little-to-no sourcing, and had ''no'' references at the time of nomination — an article persisting like that for so long is definitely at risk for potential deletion. Indeed, this may be more of a ''weak'' keep !vote than I'd prefer to admit
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BCAST||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:BCASTOUTCOMES||WP:BCAST||WP:SKCRIT)