Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBXZ
Unlicensed radio stations don't get the same presumption of notability that the licensed kind get. The licensed kind get kept as long as reliable and authoritative sources verify three key facts (the station holds an FCC license, it's actually operational and it originates at least some local programming) — but for the unlicensed kind, the notability test requires that the station is substantively the subject of enough |reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it's of significantly greater notability than most other unlicensed stations. And no, simply being listed in the |self-published affiliate lists of the shows it carries is not reliable source coverage: the only thing here that is reliable source coverage about the station is the ''Navajo-Hopi Observer'', but that's just a short blurb in a news briefs column which is not substantive enough to carry this station over that bar all by itself.And as for the tangential process debate above, it is ''not'' unusual at AFD for a nominator to initiate the discussion with a single-sentence statement of what the grounds for deletion are, and then provide more detailed reasoning in a separate "vote", instead of combining the two into a long nomination statement. It's not the way ''I'' do AFD nominations, but it's not at all unheard of and it's not against the rules
— User:Bearcat, 15:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:SELFPUB (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)