KVQT-LD : Let'srun ( talk ) 15:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas .  Let'srun ( talk ) 15:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:16, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In my opinion, this deletion request brings up a larger issue, because the vast majority of LPTV stations in the US are in effectively the same situation.  In larger markets, these stations usually get very little if any media attention and most people honestly don't even know they exist.  Some examples of others that probably would equally count as non-notable, just in Houston: KUVM-LD , KVVV-LD , KUGB-CD , KEHO-LD , KUVM-CD , KZHO-LD , and KBPX-LD .  Other cities throughout the country have similar numbers of these stations, many of which have Wikipedia articles.  I don't think it makes sense to delete KVQT-LD while leaving all these others around, so, for fairness, I think this decision needs to be made based on the larger question of whether LPTV stations are inherently notable.  And if it is decided that they are not, then a large number of deletions for LPTV stations throughout the US ought to be triggered.  Some Person ( talk ) 15:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ahem , Hold on...  No Vote, let me explain: So...  Like what Some Person (yes, that's the person's name, I ain't kidding) and WcQuidditch said, Low-Power Television stations are more likely to have no sources, therefore, unexpected (or expected, depending on some stuff) consequences, are more likely to not make Wikipedia's Notability Rules .  I mean this with all honesty, I hope that Wikipedia doesn't look at this stations and others and presume that All Low-Power Stations are not-notable.  Some of them are notable but if they made a rule that says that Low-Power TV Stations are non-notable, I feel like that wouldn't end well for a lot of stations.  And to also add a bit of irony in this situation, if there's a really short radio article, we don't pit a AfD on it, we call it a stub article, and we also wound do that on Full-Power TV stations, but only Low-Power ones are put under either PROD or AfD.  Like, it feels like we are probably taking a All or Nothing approach on Low-Power Stations; Take a look of the K04QR-D AfD , it started out of a station in California, which led to a jumbled mess which literally 75%-85% of all HC2/Innovate Corporation LOW-POWER stations were involved in, which led to a No-Consensus.  Like, if that went successful,  that should've also took all of the Full-Power stations since, they technically lost their notability that made no sense.  Either we just hate Low-Power Television or what the deal?  Again, I'm neutral on this and I will not take any sides , okay?  mer764 KC TV ( Talk ) 03:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Many of these low-power stations are less likely to get the requisite significant coverage , particularly when the programming isn't exactly local (and, in a large market, being in the shadow of numerous much-larger stations).  For what it's worth (in response to Some Person's concern), there have been a parade of AfDs (and PRODs) involving low-power stations lately (this nomination was neither the first nor last), and it's not exactly a stretch to say that the reason so many articles on them still exist is because there's so many of them: only so many can realistically be at AfD at one time, and large bundled nominations (such as this one for stations owned by one particular group owner ) don't work either.  Much of this is also about our tightening of notability guidelines; the declined PROD that blocked soft deletion was all the way back in 2006, with the rationale duly FCC-licensed television stations are always permitted on WP whether they seem notable enough or not .  For too long, merely being licensed was considered enough to be presumed "notable" in this topic area; that finally faded away after a 2021 RfC where NMEDIA was found to not have consensus to be an SNG , in turn clarifying that the more-source-based GNG is the actual barometer.  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: delete