Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOAD-LP

Add links
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. A reasonable concern has been made NMEDIA lacks community consensus, but that full discussion is not for here. Previous non-admin close has been reverted and relisted by deletion review; that close rationale has no applicability in my determination. Discussion since last relist is largely one-sided. My reading of the broader discussion is that sufficient reliable sources have been applied or presented to meet GNG and convince participants of this process that WP:PRESERVE is the deciding policy. BusterD (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KOAD-LP

[edit]

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

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

A defunct local radio station that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG. The only bit of actual coverage included in the article is just in the local paper for the town it broadcast from. I was unable to find any additional coverage in reliable sources beyond that. I initially PRODed it, but it was de-PRODed with the argument that there was two local papers covering it. However, I don't think they realized that it is actually the same article/source, just linked to twice. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Actually I said "two local newspaper articles, I think not." Not "two local papers". Now, Rorshacma is correct, it is the same link, but what they are incorrect about is, even one local media story is enough for it to pass NMEDIA and GNG. Also, KOAD-LP is still airing...sorta...as an internet-only station via the station's kfunradio.com website, branding as "K-Fun 92.5". This is significant as the LPFM's classic rock format is still on-going, along with local news, weather, and commercials. Apparently K-Fun has studios located within the Hanford Mall.
According to this article, the station is still on the air. This one talks about their morning show. On the station's stream, you can hear them very quickly ID as "KOAD-LP Hanford". While I concede, the license is officially cancelled, the station is still operating in some form or another. So, it's still notable and well within GNG and NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rorshacma is absolutely right that this radio station does not pass WP:GNG. Neutralhomer Since you believe the subject passes WP:NMEDIA, can you provide one source that fits the criteria "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, or originating some of its own programming."? What makes it stand apart from other radio stations that do not have an article? NMEDIA also says an article can be redirected to a list of radio stations that serve the area. I dont know if there is such a list but that's a possibility if there is. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ARoseWolf: If you look at my post, you will see several different links that aren't included in the sourcing of the article itself. Those should be more than sufficient. :) Hanford is a city of about 53,967 in 2010, but doesn't have a list of radio stations or a media section. Even if it did, the amount of media coverage this LPFM station has more than passes GNG, V, N, and NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree about it passing those other guidelines even if it passes NMEDIA and is allowed to stay in the encyclopedia. I don't believe Wikipedia should be an indiscriminate collection of data. I don't believe the intent was just because it exists then it should get an article. If we had something more on the historical value of the subject then I might would unequivocally accept it belongs but we don't get that. There is nothing that makes this radio station unique among all the other radio stations. If we don't have an article for every human being just because they exist then why should we have an article on every radio station. That's my rationale. I concede that your sources have it passing NMEDIA. I'll let others weigh the information and give their assessment. --ARoseWolf 16:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added one FCC citation relating to the cancellation. It's a bit of an unusual one—they got a station elsewhere and had to divest or shut down the Hanford LPFM. But I'm running into the issue of just one newspaper reference. The Hanford Sentinel seems to have mentioned them a couple more times, but not in articles useful to this (and invariably as KFUN, as a note): [1] [2] But I'm having some notability qualms still, even though personally I lean toward keeping on something like this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I've pointed out at another AfD, that doesn't matter for the context of this AfD. There's only one source in the article which could possibly qualify, the Hanford Observer article, which is hyper-local and probably fails WP:AUD if WP:NORG is the proper analysis, probably okay if we're just talking about WP:GNG, but it's not enough to write a stand-alone article on. Things like the FCC filing or a listing in a directory don't count towards notability. If there's a redirect target, such as a list of radio stations in California, we'd be better off redirecting there, since there's clearly not enough sourcing here to support a stand-alone. SportingFlyer T·C 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: "Hyper-local", for a city of 57,703 (in 2019) and that's in Kings County, California which has a population of 152,940 (in 2019)....I think not. As previously stated, newspapers are a highly reliable source. Plus, I haven't even updated the page, so there are about 5 other articles I can add....or you could (BURDEN?) if you tried. The FCC, a federal government organization, is another highly reliable source and is used across multiple pages. If you want to fight that one, I suggest you take that up with WP:N. This is not the forum for it. This isn't about the number of sources. If a page has sources, the more the merrier. We don't redirect to lists. You should know that by now. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A town of 50,000 isn't that significant in the US, and we redirect to lists all the time when there's a proper redirect target. Anyways, if there are additional sources, this may pass WP:GNG. I can't find them, I've looked, but I'll change to !keep if someone else can. However there's no way a listing in a FCC database passes WP:SIGCOV, and it may not even be independent of the subject. SportingFlyer T·C 20:17, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: Well, ain't you just a Negative Nelly? First, look up. Better yet, 1, 2, 3, 4. Yeah, local coverage. :)
Second, United States Government pages (ie: IRS.gov, GAO.gov, FCC.gov, WhiteHouse.gov, NOAA.gov, USGS.gov, etc.) are considered highly reliable sources under WP:RS, because the information is directly from the United States Government and literally goes through ALL the proverbial red tape. So, yes, FCC listings pass SIGCOV because they are RS. :) I've been doing this just as long as you have. I know the rules.
Third, a city of nearly 60,000 in a county of almost 153,000 is nothing to sneeze at. Taking into account the populations of the towns KOAD-LP served, the station had the possibility of being heard by approximately 67,823 people, give or take.
The four articles you cited were all from the Hanford Sentinel. I cannot view them due to geo-blocking, but 1 and 3 appear to have the same URL, and I know this feels like I'm moving the goalposts again, but we usually don't count multiple articles from the same publication as being enough. None of the government pages associated with this station are significant coverage. "These are significant because they are reliable" doesn't really make sense since these are two completely separate things - I'm not saying they're unreliable, just that a database entry in a government database isn't significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 07:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when you edit with a wicked migraine. :) You start not checking your work. :) Time for a Sumatriptan. :D
Anywho, I think 3 out of the 4 is better than nothing. Plus, we can show the station is still broadcasting from the Hanford Mall, where it has studios. So, even streaming online, it is still "on the air" to some extent.
I'll be honest, it does feel like you are moving the goal posts. Gotta compromise somewhere and I'm willing to work with you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see an additional source that's independent, secondary, reliable, significant, and not the Hanford Sentinel - if we can get that it probably passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 14:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1 (news story), 2 (program airing on KOAD), 3 (morning show host Joey Perez, interviewed by The Fresno Bee, regarding a picture of Tom Cruise on the set of "Top Gun 2" in Lemoore). Does that work? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Fresno Bee isn't significant coverage specifically of the station (the fact it does specifically discuss a show isn't terrible, but it's about something else entirely.) Irrelevant Deportes clearly isn't secondary or independent. The Business Journal isn't clear to me. The Business Journal would probably count if we can confirm it's a reliable source, issue with business journals is that often articles get written for promotional purposes, whether that article was independently written or not I cannot tell. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now this is moving the goalposts. I give you exactly what you ask for and from two different sources (the show was gravy) and you dismiss them all. You are dismissing everything. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say, the sources aren't very good! SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you take the sources you have and make a very not good lemonade out of them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed. WP:BADNAC backed out per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 24. Any uninvolved admin may either re-close this now, or allow it to run for another week, as they see fit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Broad community consensus is that articles should meet either the GNG or an SNG that has consensus. WP:NMEDIA does not have community consensus, so all votes on the basis of that essay are effectively WP:IAR arguments. However, the prose in the article is mostly sourced to reliable sources: although the coverage in The Hanford Sentinel is not quite substantial, the source appears reliable and it is verifying some facts. Similarly, the FCC seems to be "reliable" and is "independent of the article subject", although it is a primary source. Above all though, notability is really a test as to whether it's possible to write an article that complies with core content policies (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV). This article appears to mostly have sourced prose that complies with all three of those guidelines. As such, I cannot identify a good reason to delete it since the information here may be of use to a reader, it complies with our policies and causes no harm, and Wikipedia is not a WP:PAPER encyclopaedia. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- You make a very strong case argument, @ProcrastinatingReader. I can see merit in your conclusions. All I ever ask for in the case of an AfD is for someone to show me how they reach their conclusions. I am not so closed minded that I can not be convinced to see it from another perspective. This is one such case. I see no reason to delete this article as it does meet the criteria and the spirit of our core principles. Above all else it provides useful information for readers. --ARoseWolf 15:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As it is closed, it is now historical, and the threshold for historical institutions is much more generous than for a currently trading commercial organisation. There is currently controversy over the guideline covering these things, but that is just a content Structurism issue. The information might be better merged to a list of local radio stations, eg sortable by place, years operating, start & finished, etc, but deleting in the meantime is just destructive. WP:Preserve while working to improve. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. Dr. Universe (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the keep !votes address the fact that this does not meet WP:GNG, which does not distinguish between active and defunct entities. Onel5969 TT me 18:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Actually, mine does (which SBKSPP echoed), and many are pile-ons. ProcrastinatingReader said it even better and ARoseWolf !voted off that user's !vote. SmokeyJoe, who I rarely see eye to eye with, even !voted keep on his own opinions and per PRESERVE. GNG isn't the end-all-be-all.
Once again, the indigenous people of North Sentinel Island know how you feel about radio station articles and GNG. You can drop the STICK at any time. The horse is dead and has long been turned into dust. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, yours doesn't. Again, saying something passes GNG when it clearly doesn't isn't a cogent argument, you make a case for BCAST, but that does not address the dearth of in-depth coverage in multiple sources which would pass WP:GNG. And you're personal attacks are getting stale. Onel5969 TT me 00:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: That wasn't a personal attack, that was stating a fact. You clearly dislike radio station pages and have made no effort to take part in the discussion or rewrite of NMEDIA. So, it's a clear fact, not an attack. Also, have you had a look at the page? 15 sources and references. The "dearth" of in-depth coverage is there, hence STICK.
Just cause you want the Keep !votes ignored, because the Deletes are in the minority, doesn't mean it will happen. The article has the sources and references to meet and exceed GNG and the current writing of NMEDIA. Saying something doesn't pass GNG, when it ticks all of the boxes, isn't a "cogent argument", it's actually the opposite of one, it would be muddled and feeble. Yes, I can pull out a 50 cent word too. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:09, 11 July 2021 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KOAD-LP&oldid=1033461212"