Home • Search • Translate
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 keep. ( non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte ( talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

KBGN

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

KBGN (  | 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)

Lacking secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Current sources are the FCC, radio-locator.com, and Broadcasting Yearbook. These do not demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability) AusLondonder ( talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I really wish we could have an AfD in this topic area without aspersions being cast on editors. Some of your edit summaries in response to my notifications have just been abusive. Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
FYI Scott Fybush is pretty well known in the radio world. He writes a column called northeast radio watch, among other things. He's a journalist. He has toured hundreds of tower sites across the country, visiting studios and gathering historical information on these stations. To say he's un-notable, or a poor source, is a slap in the face. The editor at the bottom of this discussion below me, Sammi Brie, brings up an excellent point. I feel like due diligence isn't given to these articles, and instead its a knee-jerk decision to post an afd. I second her post about WP:BEFORE. If you want to talk about "abusive", maybe start with your nomination process for these articles. You give them no chance for improvement, you just click AfD and move onto the next one. As someone who has edited this site since mid-2000s, this isn't the first time someone had a mission to delete articles in relation to WP:WPRS. Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way? Accord to WP:BEFORE, that's what you're supposed to do. You too can add sources to articles if you find them. If I had the power to post AfD templates, I wouldn't abuse it per that policy. I'm glad I found that WP:BEFORE exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive. And no, I know you're probably not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per WP:BEFORE. I'd gladly add sources if that's necessary, and I'll continue to do so. All you have to do is tell me. An AfD should be the last resort. If you can't find any third party sources for the station, fine. I don't own these articles, I just want them to be improved. As far as abusive edit summaries, you link directly to my talk page, somewhere I'm free to express my opinions and concern that these articles are just put on the chopping block withoutdue process. I also don't like clutter on my talk page, and move it frequently to archives. I poured many hours into editing this site over the past two decades, and it's just amazing it can all be taken away because of one person's opinion of what qualifies for notability. And yes, I get that things have changed since 2008, but the Idaho Statesman references (thank you Sammi) should put the nail in the coffin for this one. That's as third-party as you can get. The same with Scott Fybush's posts. One would think a journalist is a reliable third party source, but here we are. -Edit splice- added two more sources that are pretty notable. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I believe you are mistaken on what a source is and how it connects to notability. The Idaho State Broadcasters Association is a secondary source, as is Broadcasting Yearbook (a periodical of it's time) and Scott Fybush's website, who is known and trusted within the industry for his news coverage (and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable. These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.
Oh and let's forego the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, along with calling people "abusive", when someone disagrees with you. It's getting old and verging into NPA territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
So it's a personal attack to call out abusive edit summaries but it's not a personal attack to write abusive edit summaries? You know full well its got nothing to do with legitimate disagreement. I can see why you've been subject to such significant restrictions given your behaviour here and at other AfDs. AusLondonder ( talk) 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per work done by Milonica. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on sourcing A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source. It's also obviously not independent of the subject. The Scott Fybush source is a very poor source for demonstrating notability. It is about his trip looking at radio towers and specifically "The AM Towers of Boise, Idaho" - KBGN is only mentioned very briefly and only in the context of its transmission tower. Nothing to do with discussion of the station or its history, operations or broadcasts. The radio yearbook is again a very simple directory listing. That's the exact opposite of what significant coverage is. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in Idaho: I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not brief mentions, directories, or non- independent sourcing. I wouldn't be surprised if GNG-appropriate sourcing is lurking out there somewhere, but our inclusion standards are far stricter now than they were in 2008, and retaining anything more than an {{ R to list entry}} without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming less-policy-based over time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seriously—did someone even bother doing WP:BEFORE where they should have done it, like The Idaho Statesman? I found four refs easily. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station, especially this. Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting WP:GNG I'm not sure as GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" AusLondonder ( talk) 02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That short one is at least noteworthy for dating purposes, but I would say the others are SIGCOV; we have a feature article on the station, an article entirely on the new station starting broadcasting, and an article about the radio station's transmitter causing site issues with the new airport. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on additions to this article since the nomination. I don't see more support for Deletion here so it looks like the realistic options are Keep or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I think the general consensus is that the article has been improved enough. I don't know how more reliable a source the Idaho Statesman is. That one should end this tirade. There are several third-party sources in this article now that prove that the station exists, and it has a history. This includes the United States Senate for pete sake. I'm not sure why there is a hang up on this one. Scott Fybush is a reliable source. He has been in radio for decades, and publishes a weekly column, on top of touring tower sites and gathering history. He's a journalist. There are several third-party sources in this article, including big ones that offer significant coverage. This should have been resolved by now. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep: I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Wikipedia, but there is clearly enough sourcing in this article to prove notability - principally articles specifically about the station in multiple newspapers. Sammi Brie is a subject matter expert and has found good sources here, this article should be kept. Flip Format ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability. There's no reason to delete it. Gedaali ( talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: First of up, per WP:BEFORE, and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).
○ Auslonderder, before putting an AfD to stations note that there was work involved and check the sources. They are reliable sources; also a little note, the Broadcasting Yearnook and Scott Fybush's website is notable. So yea, check WP:BEFORE. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:15, 14 April 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KBGN&oldid=1219200805"
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 keep. ( non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte ( talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

KBGN

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

KBGN (  | 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)

Lacking secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Current sources are the FCC, radio-locator.com, and Broadcasting Yearbook. These do not demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability) AusLondonder ( talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I really wish we could have an AfD in this topic area without aspersions being cast on editors. Some of your edit summaries in response to my notifications have just been abusive. Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder ( talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
FYI Scott Fybush is pretty well known in the radio world. He writes a column called northeast radio watch, among other things. He's a journalist. He has toured hundreds of tower sites across the country, visiting studios and gathering historical information on these stations. To say he's un-notable, or a poor source, is a slap in the face. The editor at the bottom of this discussion below me, Sammi Brie, brings up an excellent point. I feel like due diligence isn't given to these articles, and instead its a knee-jerk decision to post an afd. I second her post about WP:BEFORE. If you want to talk about "abusive", maybe start with your nomination process for these articles. You give them no chance for improvement, you just click AfD and move onto the next one. As someone who has edited this site since mid-2000s, this isn't the first time someone had a mission to delete articles in relation to WP:WPRS. Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way? Accord to WP:BEFORE, that's what you're supposed to do. You too can add sources to articles if you find them. If I had the power to post AfD templates, I wouldn't abuse it per that policy. I'm glad I found that WP:BEFORE exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive. And no, I know you're probably not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per WP:BEFORE. I'd gladly add sources if that's necessary, and I'll continue to do so. All you have to do is tell me. An AfD should be the last resort. If you can't find any third party sources for the station, fine. I don't own these articles, I just want them to be improved. As far as abusive edit summaries, you link directly to my talk page, somewhere I'm free to express my opinions and concern that these articles are just put on the chopping block withoutdue process. I also don't like clutter on my talk page, and move it frequently to archives. I poured many hours into editing this site over the past two decades, and it's just amazing it can all be taken away because of one person's opinion of what qualifies for notability. And yes, I get that things have changed since 2008, but the Idaho Statesman references (thank you Sammi) should put the nail in the coffin for this one. That's as third-party as you can get. The same with Scott Fybush's posts. One would think a journalist is a reliable third party source, but here we are. -Edit splice- added two more sources that are pretty notable. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I believe you are mistaken on what a source is and how it connects to notability. The Idaho State Broadcasters Association is a secondary source, as is Broadcasting Yearbook (a periodical of it's time) and Scott Fybush's website, who is known and trusted within the industry for his news coverage (and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable. These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.
Oh and let's forego the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, along with calling people "abusive", when someone disagrees with you. It's getting old and verging into NPA territory. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
So it's a personal attack to call out abusive edit summaries but it's not a personal attack to write abusive edit summaries? You know full well its got nothing to do with legitimate disagreement. I can see why you've been subject to such significant restrictions given your behaviour here and at other AfDs. AusLondonder ( talk) 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Per work done by Milonica. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment on sourcing A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source. It's also obviously not independent of the subject. The Scott Fybush source is a very poor source for demonstrating notability. It is about his trip looking at radio towers and specifically "The AM Towers of Boise, Idaho" - KBGN is only mentioned very briefly and only in the context of its transmission tower. Nothing to do with discussion of the station or its history, operations or broadcasts. The radio yearbook is again a very simple directory listing. That's the exact opposite of what significant coverage is. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of radio stations in Idaho: I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not brief mentions, directories, or non- independent sourcing. I wouldn't be surprised if GNG-appropriate sourcing is lurking out there somewhere, but our inclusion standards are far stricter now than they were in 2008, and retaining anything more than an {{ R to list entry}} without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming less-policy-based over time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seriously—did someone even bother doing WP:BEFORE where they should have done it, like The Idaho Statesman? I found four refs easily. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station, especially this. Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting WP:GNG I'm not sure as GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" AusLondonder ( talk) 02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That short one is at least noteworthy for dating purposes, but I would say the others are SIGCOV; we have a feature article on the station, an article entirely on the new station starting broadcasting, and an article about the radio station's transmitter causing site issues with the new airport. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more feedback on additions to this article since the nomination. I don't see more support for Deletion here so it looks like the realistic options are Keep or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - I think the general consensus is that the article has been improved enough. I don't know how more reliable a source the Idaho Statesman is. That one should end this tirade. There are several third-party sources in this article now that prove that the station exists, and it has a history. This includes the United States Senate for pete sake. I'm not sure why there is a hang up on this one. Scott Fybush is a reliable source. He has been in radio for decades, and publishes a weekly column, on top of touring tower sites and gathering history. He's a journalist. There are several third-party sources in this article, including big ones that offer significant coverage. This should have been resolved by now. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)) reply
  • Keep: I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Wikipedia, but there is clearly enough sourcing in this article to prove notability - principally articles specifically about the station in multiple newspapers. Sammi Brie is a subject matter expert and has found good sources here, this article should be kept. Flip Format ( talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability. There's no reason to delete it. Gedaali ( talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: First of up, per WP:BEFORE, and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).
○ Auslonderder, before putting an AfD to stations note that there was work involved and check the sources. They are reliable sources; also a little note, the Broadcasting Yearnook and Scott Fybush's website is notable. So yea, check WP:BEFORE. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:15, 14 April 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KBGN&oldid=1219200805"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE