Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K103CX

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K103CX[edit]

K103CX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Station is fake, no station with this callsign appears in the FCC database. Furthermore, 87.9 would be channel 200, as in K200AA. K103CX would be 78.5 on the FM dial. Broadcast FM radio in the US only goes as low as 88.1 with just one station (K200AA) on 87.9.

The 87.9 frequency is not available for other stations to move to or new stations to begin broadcasting from, per FCC rules. K200AA being on 87.9 (and KSFH previously being on that frequency) were flukes when those stations were pushed off their previous frequencies and 87.9 was the only frequency available.

This incorrect information is also on the KHTI page as well. NeutralhomerTalk • 03:20 on November 29, 2017 (UTC) 03:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I can't find any evidence of its existence. --Rusf10 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Babymissfortune 05:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a blatant hoax—the image lists a completely different frequency, 103.9. The image might be a hoax as well. 165.91.12.190 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2017 (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.