Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WVNC LP
without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when its existence and operations can be |reliably sourced. It's not the ''claim'' of having a broadcast license that gets a radio station over , because that's a thing that pirates and hoaxers can easily ''lie'' about — it's the ''sourcing'' that can be provided to properly |verify that the claim is actually true. Mlaffs is correct that the lack of verifiable evidence here throws the claim that it got its license a few days ago in doubt — but even if we grant the assumption that it is indeed true and we're just making some kind of error in finding the right FCC record, the mere fact of having been issued a construction permit is still not grounds for a Wikipedia article: a radio station has to be verifiably ''on the air'' before it qualifies to have an article on here. And on top of that, a radio station ''also'' has to originate some portion of its own original programming, rather than operating purely as a rebroadcaster or translator of another station or syndicated programming service, but this neither shows nor sources any evidence that ''that'' condition has been passed either: it just claims that the station broadcasts Bloomberg Radio, without stating or sourcing ''any'' indication that it creates any of its own original local programming. So ''if'' this is a real station as the creator claims, then no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it can be properly sourced as passing all of NMEDIA's conditions for the notability of radio stations — but Mlaffs and Xenon54 are correct that as of right now this looks more like either a pirate that's ''lying'' about its license status or an outright hoax that doesn't exist at all. And even if it does exist as a rebroadcaster of Bloomberg, that would get it a redirect to Bloomberg rather than a standalone article
— User:Bearcat, 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:NMEDIA||WP:V (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)