Talk:WLLZ (FM)

	Radio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio Stations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of radio stations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Radio StationsWikipedia:WikiProject Radio StationsTemplate:WikiProject Radio StationsRadio station articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This statement IS a neutral point of view![edit]

Someone (who probably works at clear channel) keeps deleting the following statement the wikipedia page:

"Clear channel has put very little effort into promoting the station. Radio insiders believe the station only has a country format to steal as many listeners as possible from WYCD, which was starting to challenge Clear Channel's adult contemporary WNIC in revenue and ratings."

This is a TRUE statement. It is harsh, but true. It is also from a neutral point of view.

Could the next person who deletes this section please describe in detail (in more than just a few letters or words) why this section is deleted. It is important for people to know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.114.90 (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a simple explanation. You can claim it's true all you want, but unless you have a source for your statement, not only is it original research, it can only appear to be from a non-neutral point of view. Provide a reference, and it can stay. Otherwise, it's no more than an unsourced attack. JPG-GR (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally have a reference for the statement, which means it is no longer original research, and it is no longer an unsourced attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.229.114.182 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]