Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CIHC-TV

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CIHC-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable community channel; fails WP:NBROADCAST; only one sentence. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it is not notable. Does not cite any sources and no significant coverage about it anywhere. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia seems to be going on a massive delete frenzy lately and I find this very concerning for a project that claims to want to be the greatest encyclopedia ever made. It has references in its external links. What would qualify as "significant coverage"? Do you mean on cable services in the area? I'll settle for an Alternative to Deletion such as mentioning it (and including its infobox) in the town of license's page in a Media section, if it must be deleted, however. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about it in newspapers, by which we could actually verify anything about it, would be a start. What kind of programming does or did it broadcast, for example? Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OTA community channels like this are rare, and notable for that reason alone. In any case, any OTA channel operating until about 2010 or so in developed markets had a significant impact on their community. That it has a single sentence in it's body should encourage someone worried about the depth of the page to add more information.Transient-understanding (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Station broadcasts over-the-air, and this is a perfectly acceptable stub. It's certainly significant to the community it's in, and sometimes that's all that's needed. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 16 February 2022 (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.