- 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 no consensus. Courcelles 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Libra Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is this page really notable at all? It seems like a promotional page, and most of the refs used seem forced. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a advertisement, sections below information look like they've been copied and pasted onto the article (all facts and bullet points, no actual information except chairperson and sponsors)--Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There does appear to be significant coverage from independent reliable sources, like Sina.com. Looking like an advert is reason for editing, not deletion. An article for a terrestrial radio station like this in the United States would never get deleted. No need for systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as article appears to cross both the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 08:34, 28 December 2010 (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.