Deletion of WNG560

Comment: NOAA Weather Radio is absolutely notable enough for an article about it as a company, but every individual NOAA transmitter across the country does not need its own standalone article — they aren't notable independently of NOAA as a whole, they can be referenced nowhere but NOAA's own |primary source data about themselves because they get no standalone coverage in independent |reliable sources that have anything whatsoever to do with the establishment of a topic's notability, and they all ''fail'' at least one of the NMEDIA conditions for the notability of radio stations (namely the one about having to originate at least a portion of their own programming, rather than operating solely as rebroadcasters of a larger parent service.) There was actually a consensus established a couple of years ago that all of the articles in {{cl|NOAA Weather Radio stations}} should be redirected to broader articles about the regional NOAA office that they operate from — but that never actually happened because nobody was willing to actually take on the work, and even the regional NOAA offices aren't really reliably sourceable anywhere but NOAA's own self-published content about itself either. There's simply no need for each of these transmitters to have its own standalone article independently of NOAA as a whole — we could maintain a ''list'' of them in the "name, frequency, location, the end" format that we use for lists of radio stations in geographic locations, if desired, but there's no encyclopedic value in each one having its own standalone article or even in maintaining all of the same content by merging them into regional omnibus articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS)

Comment: Fails  and . If someone generates a list of NOAA stations in the US (I'm not so sure state is needed) that can be handled outside this AfD. I don't foresee a redirect/merge being useful for anything here, so better to just delete and let someone pick up the listing topic independently
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:BROADCAST)

Comment: Per NOAA Weather Radio being HIGHLY notable, and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NMEDIA)

Comment: The radio section of  has a sentence about Travelers' Information Stations (''"On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets ."''), and I see this as being very similar. I don't think there's any doubt that NOAA Weather Radio is notable. However I don't see that the majority of the many individual stations are notable. They would need to meet , and I would be surprised if there was in depth coverage from independent sources. For this test case :WNG560 the references are not independent. The principle of  apply here. I am not sure of the procedure for a bulk nomination followed by bulk deletion or redirection, but that's what I think we need here. Anyone making those changes would need to check each article to see if there's special treatment required of individual stations on the basis that for some reason they have individual notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BROADCAST||WP:CORP||WP:GNG||WP:NOTDIRECTORY)