Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEAA-LP

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. Nobody wants to keep this, and the "redirect" opinion does not propose a specific redirect target. It is also beside the point of the AfD, by not addressing the reason provided for deletion (lack of notability), but attacking the nominator's motives and going on a weird tangent by making allegations against a shadowy cabal of editors. I'm therefore giving this opinion no weight in assessing consensus, but noting that nothing prevents the creation of a redirect to wherever people may think appropriate. Sandstein 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEAA-LP (edit | 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)

Radio stations must meet at least WP:GNG. This defunct high school radio station from a village of less than 100 people has had zero secondary sources since its creation 16 years ago. Could not locate any useful secondary sources to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Another obvious remnant of the looser notability "standards" present in this topic area in 2008. (Even then, this apparently was a recreation of an article deleted via PROD in 2007 with the rationale Article does not establish notability, and low-power FM radio stations in the US are generally non-notable.. Suffice it to say that's a deletion rationale that, in this topic area, you would have been more likely to encounter today [after a 2021 RfC closed the books on the notion on broadcast stations getting a more lenient notability guideline than the GNG] than in 2007…) For what it's worth, while non-notability is probably as unable to be inherited as notability is, Eagle Community School itself has no article, so any redirect in that realm isn't happening (the school district it's in does, but a redirect would be a surprise and a merge would be undue). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect — Outright deletion achieved through consensus in name only, built on a nomination intended to promote systemic bias, would solely benefit the desires of those editors who appear more interested in defining what's notable than reflecting what's notable. The question here: do we exist to provide a historical record, or yet another current events or news site? Few places on the encyclopedia show greater disregard for the notion of Wikipedia as a historical record than our coverage of U.S. radio stations. The topic area is dominated by a group of SPAs unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content. The overarching POV they push is that notability centers around a current, valid FCC license. Of course, we have WP:NTEMP/WP:DEGRADE for a reason. Whether or not the nominator is a part of this group, the fact is that this nomination falls perfectly in line with that particular bit of POV-pushing. Potential redirect targets include List of radio stations in Alaska#Defunct stations, Eagle, Alaska#Education and Alaska Gateway School District. As radio stations operated by grade schools are still pretty rare, this is significant enough to warrant mention as part of the historical context of the latter two topics. Deletion provides an excuse for those who appear to believe that the existence of the station doesn't need to be acknowledged in any context. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RadioKAOS: I'm struggling to understand your comments. It's actually an unacceptable violation of WP:NPA to imply that I am a "SPA unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content" - I have more than 30,000 contributions with a miniscule number relating to radio content. You're accusing me of being an SPA in the radio topic area when you have radio in your name! You say that the "overarching POV" editors such as myself push is that "notability centers around a current, valid FCC license." - you must be joking. I think notability is dependent on WP:GNG. I literally couldn't care less about a government-issued licence which does not contribute to notability per GNG at all. I genuinely don't even understand your comment about systemic bias. Systemic bias against unsourced articles? AusLondonder (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  AusLondoner, "RadioKAOS" is actually the name of a Roger Waters album from 1987, a rock band from Los Angeles, and a record store in Stevens Point, Wisconsin. I'd go with the first of the three as to the inspiration of RadioKAOS's username. While there is a KAOS-FM in Olympia, Washington, our RadioKAOS has no association (I know, I asked once). My point is, just because he has "radio" in his username is not a valid arguement. Also, just because someone disagrees without, offers a different viewpoint, doesn't mean they are personally attacking you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you missed the bits about "The topic area is dominated by a group of SPAs unafraid to edit-war and WP:OWN content" and "the fact is that this nomination falls perfectly in line with that particular bit of POV-pushing" I'm not suggesting there's an issue with the name, it was more a sarcastic comment given the remarks about SPAs and ownership of radio content. Of course disagreement is more than fine, would just be preferable if editors commented on the substance of the AfD rather than on the alleged motives of the nom. Per WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I understand there's pushback from editors who created content without regard to GNG, but let's try and have a civilised debate on each article on its merits. AusLondonder (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You quote NPA with "Comment on content, not on the contributor", then you say "I understand there's pushback from editors who created content without regard to GNG" (literally insulting a few dozen editors, some of which who are no longer with us), and then you ask for a "civilised debate". If you'll excuse me, I have to go to the ER for my whiplash. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm saying I understand why some people are frustrated. Apologies if that part came across as snide. AusLondonder (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Frustrated is something you get when you can't find your keys. This is not that....and it's not just you. I have no further comment. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:22, 26 March 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.