Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KBXZ

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. Michig (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KBXZ

KBXZ (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)

Per WP:BROADCAST, unlicensed station with very little information available from web search or web news searches so seems to fail WP:CORP. Closeapple (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my own nomination. Despite the article title, this is not a licensed station and has no officially-issued call sign: The name "KBXZ" is a self-created alternate name to give the appearance of a call sign. (There has been no licensed station with the callsign KBXZ since at least 1979, if ever.) I've found exactly one news article: a non-substantial, one-paragraph mention of starting up in the Quick Reads columns of the Navajo-Hopi Observer, November 24, 2004. I also looked on Google web search and Google News. The phrase "carries programming from the Premiere Radio Networks" is in the Wikipedia article, so to find anything that isn't a Wikipedia copy, I searched for "Fox Sports Radio 1650" -Wikipedia -"carries programming from the Premiere Radio Networks" — No results found on Google web search or Google News. The search "KBXZ" -Wikipedia -"carries programming from the Premiere Radio Networks" shows only mass-created audio-streaming links (which are just the generic Fox Sports Radio streaming feed) and unrelated topics; the news link shows only the ASU only the ASU football station list from 2009, and 3 irrelevant non-Latin-alphabet pages. Searches for "Bill Hagen" (possible station owner) and "Out the Window Advertising" (his marketing firm) with various combinations didn't help much either: I got the Navajo-Hopi Observer column that way though. --Closeapple (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Fails NMEDIA. It's not a licensed radio station, aka pirate, which means it does not enjoy the same notability that all other legal (ie: licensed) radio and TV stations do under NMEDIA. Plus, just in case there are any questions as to whether the station might be under a different callsign, it isn't. The State of Arizona does not have a signal "expanded band" AM station within the state's borders, which would include AM1650, the frequency KBXZ claims to broadcast on. Also, according to the FCC Callsign Query Database, the KBXZ callsign is available. The station is a pirate or just outright fake. Delete. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:32 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
• Comment – There are only two !voters arguing to delete, as the second one is the same as the first. Also, the speedy delete !voter is not arguing to speedy delete at all. J947 ^(c), at 00:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Comment: @J947: Actually, if you would read my post, I am giving the EXACT reasons why it's a Speedy Delete. Doesn't meet NMEDIA, isn't in any FCC database (AMQ or CQD). I just got wordy and showed my work instead of just saying three or four words which really said nothing. Also, Closeapple's post and mine are not the same. He focused on Google web and Google news search results, I focused on FCC results. Again, read before commenting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually Neutralhomer, failing NMEDIA is not at all a reason for speedy deletion. And the nominator counts as a !voter, so Closeapple could you please strike your second !vote. J947 ^(c), at 04:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also unless you add a new comment pings don't work. Fun fact. J947 ^(c), at 04:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • J947: You still saw it, so whatever works. :) NMEDIA is the cornerstone of WPRS and TVS. So, yes, if an article fails NMEDIA, it is an immediate Speedy Delete. Also, the nominator can !vote on the AfD to expand on the reason for the AfD. It's a common practice. I believe you need more experience with AfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:59 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
        • @Neutralhomer: See WP:Articles for Deletion#How to contribute, which says Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line, and is NMEDIA listed as a criterion for speedy deletion? And I find it hard to believe that I am inexperienced at AfDs. 1316 unique AfD pages edited. Sure, most of them aren't !votes, but 167 of them are. Inexperienced? Really? J947 ^(c), at 03:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • J947: I thought pings didn't work? Anywho, just because you've edited 1,316 AfDs, doesn't mean you understand the process or you would know it's commonplace for the nominator to still !vote regardless of their nomination. As for "NMEDIA [being] listed as a criterion for speedy deletion", the rules setforth in NMEDIA allow me to Speedy Delete a page as the KBXZ page does not enjoy the notability legally licensed radio and television stations do...again, under NMEDIA. As such, NMEDIA allows the page to be Speedy Deleted or CSD'd under G3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
            • @Neutralhomer: It is not a hoax as from a simple google search you can see mentions that evidently indicate this is their subject. And if you know that it's a bit commonplace to !vote with your nomination, like I do, then you should also know that it's discouraged. I could point you to many examples if I had the time to dig through archives and my contribs. And pings only don't work when you add them in a separate edit to your comment, as you did earlier. J947 ^(c), at 04:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's a blatant hoax because everything legal under Wikipedia rules shows the station does not exist and there is no backing third-party reliable sources outside of a newspaper article with a passing one paragraph mention and their own Facebook page. That's not good enough. How they somehow found a way to get their "callsign" onto Fox Sports and ASU radio network websites is another matter. What the matter is, and what you don't seem to understand, this article does not pass Wikipedia rules. If it weren't for you being in New Zealand, I would say you had a hand in the page's creation and update as hard as you are pushing for it's inclusion. Stand down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:15 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
                • Hold on a second. Did I ever say I was arguing for this undeserved article to be included? In fact, I am thinking the exact opposite right now. I know full well that this article does not pass Wikipedia rules. But you are arguing among the wrong rules. You should be solely arguing about GNG and NMEDIA (both of which it fails), rather than G3. Do you really think this article falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth? (from WP:HOAX) Do you notice anyone else arguing here along the lines of G3? And a passing one-paragraph mention and other (unreliable) sources backing that up is surely enough to pass G3. It's nowhere close to GNG, I know. It doesn't pass it at all. But you're arguing for 'Speedy Delete' not just plain 'Delete', which implies you think the article fails the CSD guidelines. The article just barely passes A7, I must say, and it certainly doesn't belong here in the first place, but it's a long, long way off from failing G3. J947 ^(c), at 18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • J947: Arguing that one deletion !vote should be struck and my !vote should be removed/changed/whatever because it doesn't meet your version of Speedy, yes, I say you are fighting pretty damned hard for this article to be included. NMEDIA is really all I need to argue, it adds the GNG rules within it. It was written that way by people who can write a helluva better than I can. The article also fails BROADCAST. When those are failed, the discussion is over. There is no need for more and more...and more...and more discussion, ad naseum. It's over. 3 delete !votes, stick a fork in it, it's done. Give it a rest already, will ya? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:19 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
                    • @Neutralhomer: 4 deletes. You didn't notice? :) J947 ^(c), at 18:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J947: About time! So, ya good now? No more discussions? We can all move all with our lives? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Why a major network like FSR associates with a talking house station is way beyond me (usually these are all 14 year-olds playing 'pretend radio' like the one-guy SoCal noms from last year), and this is real...but it is not an FCC licensed station (and it certainly isn't playing Sun Devils sports, because I'm sure KMVP-FM would have made them a financial crater by now for usurping their market rights). No matter if Dan Patrick is actually voicing promos saying to tune into this station, it has no history outside of feeding FSR with no local continuity and without any actual local history like many of the FM LP and closed-circuit school AM stations we usually pass here. It talks nothing about its signal range, even as a city-wide pirate operation (though since it's at the end of the AM dial and playing low-rated national sports talk you can stream easily from a smart speaker rather than explicit rap music over a mid-FM frequency, it's probably a very low priority for the FCC to shut down). If it had that...maybe it would be a weak keep, but per CA and NH, this is a strong delete from me. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another source (as tenuous as radio boards can be, of course), describing that they started as an FM pirate (with the 'nope, FCC wouldn't give out those calls' of KWTF) before beginning this convoluted AM scheme which only gets four miles of range, at best. Yes, it's real, but they've never headed to the FCC and asked to make it legal, so it doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST under our standards, J947. Nate • (chatter) 07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The Zona Rocks format referred to in the radio board thread does still exist, but in online-only form (they were in an extended set of GNR). It still mentions "Northern Arizona" on it's website and in the station's bumpers. So, it stands to reason this is probably from the same people that came up with KBXZ. I agree with the radio board discussion, it's a Part 15 AM on steroids and agree with Nate, doesn't meet BROADCAST either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:23 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment: For what it's worth, an anonymous IP on 2013-12-14 edited this wiki article to say "Fox Sports Radio 1650 is often confused with a low-power station 'AM 1650 The Buzz' in Prescott Valley Arizona, which shares the same Flagstaff-Prescott radio market." Whether the anonymous IP didn't know what he was talking about, or they were cooperating, or why this Flagstaff station uses the fake name "KBXZ" but the Prescott Valley station uses the name "The Buzz", I don't know. The line was removed on 2019-02-23 by a different anonymous IP with the edit summary "deleted info on AM 1650 The Buzz, as the station doesn't seem to exist on terrestrial radio anymore". --Closeapple (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Can't find anything extra in my Gnews search so fails GNG by a long shot. Was going to suggest redirecting to Flagstaff but I thought better of it as it is too big a jump up for a redirect. Also was thinking List of radio stations in Arizona could be a possible target but realised that it's only for FCC-licensed ones so not a good redirect. J947 ^(c), at 18:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not extend to unlicensed stations, regardless of its programming — and a lack of local programming is itself a strike against potential notability. Granted, having existed since 2004 is a pretty decent run for a maybe-Part 15 station (though they did run into FCC issues in 2005), but the general notability guideline requires more than that. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unlicensed radio stations don't get the same presumption of notability that the licensed kind get. The licensed kind get kept as long as reliable and authoritative sources verify three key facts (the station holds an FCC license, it's actually operational and it originates at least some local programming) — but for the unlicensed kind, the notability test requires that the station is substantively the subject of enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it's of significantly greater notability than most other unlicensed stations. And no, simply being listed in the self-published affiliate lists of the shows it carries is not reliable source coverage: the only thing here that is reliable source coverage about the station is the Navajo-Hopi Observer, but that's just a short blurb in a news briefs column which is not substantive enough to carry this station over that bar all by itself.
  And as for the tangential process debate above, it is not unusual at AFD for a nominator to initiate the discussion with a single-sentence statement of what the grounds for deletion are, and then provide more detailed reasoning in a separate "vote", instead of combining the two into a long nomination statement. It's not the way I do AFD nominations, but it's not at all unheard of and it's not against the rules. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2019 (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.