Talk:KONK (AM)

Why the attack?
This article was marked for neutrality, most likely because I wrote the original stub. Although I host one, once-a-week show on the station, it is a community radio station and I have no ownership or commercial interest. I have not added any information to this article which is not neutral, encyclopedic, and verifiable.

Disturbingly, the page was marked for lack of citations and even flagged for swift deletion See history -- even though I added three citiations, including one from BusinessWeek! The station has been on the air less than a month. I'm not sure how many citations one could expect, but I think BusinessWeek is pretty legit and proves that I didn't just invent this information. Someone even commented that the page looked like spam! On what basis? There's nothing different here from other Keys radio station pages in Wikipedia. That's where I got the template!

I must add that the "attack" on this page was unwarranted and would be off-putting to a Wikipedia newcomer. If this were my first experience editing Wikipedia content and I found myself immediately beset with complaints and requests for deletion -- well, I don't think I'd ever write for Wikipedia again. That's not the way to engender community spirit.

SkyCaptain (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read all the guidelines for radio stations from the Radio Station Project and it looks like the KONK page is entirely on-point to me. Can we remove the complaint tag now?

SkyCaptain (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's been cleaned up and properly referenced now, but the tagging when applied (by editors other than myself) was justified. Unlicensed radio stations do not enjoy the same general notability as FCC licensed stations and so must meet the standard of any other organization.  The Business Week link was broken and on investigation was merely part of their website's scoop up of all news articles published on the web.  The actual publication is now referenced and linked.  Also, your involvement with the radio station does represent a conflict of interest but, as long as it's disclosed and the tone of the article stays neutral rather than promotional, the tag can be avoided for now. - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the badge. You were complaining about my article while I was still writing it. It bears repeating that "jumping down someone's throat" is not generally considering an inviting, community-minded approach.

On the issue of notability, it's not really within one user's purview to decide that an activity in which our community has decided to engage is somehow unworthy of mention in Wikipedia. This is factual, relevant, and historic information which is perfectly appropriate to enter into the encyclopedia. There's no reason to compare KONK to a licensed station or the wiki pages they might have. The content here fits the subject matter.

On the issue of neutrality, to ask that only persons not associated with an activity be able to write about that activity would preclude much valuable content from ever reaching Wikipedia. I don't think that's the spirit in which the neutrality guidelines are meant. The article's content must stand on its own and, as I have said, every bit is verifiable and unrelated to me personally.

Actually, this is a good article by any reasonable standards -- certainly its an acceptable stub which should have been allowed to stand or be improved by further editing, as you did with your citation.

SkyCaptain (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, I didn't add the tags, I didn't jump down anybody's throat, and I never complained about this article. I worked to improve the article, I worked to clean it up, and I worked quickly to keep other editors from taking any other actions against the article.  You'll find I work very hard to rescue and improve radio station articles of all kinds.  You can check the article history for the editor who actually (correctly) tagged the article but, again, it wasn't me.
 * As I said earlier, declaring your conflict of interest goes a long way towards ameliorating its impact. And on notability, there are clear guidelines as to what is and is not notable enough for Wikipedia.  Very few unlicensed and/or internet broadcasters meet this threshold.  It's not personal, it's just policy and precedent. - Dravecky (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversing My Position
As I come to understand more about Wikipedia policy, I see that this article cannot stand. Under the description of advertising, on the What Wikipedia Isn't page, I found this: "articles about very small 'garage' or local companies are typically unacceptable." Sorry to take this page "round the block" but we're all learning and, as it say, no one can "break" Wikipedia and we should "be bold." Everyone associated with this article is COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyCaptain (talk • contribs) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What is this thing anyway?
The current revision of the article claims KNOK is a radio station on 1500 kHz in Key West, but that's actually a licensed station (WKIZ) that has existed since before the 1980s. The WKIZ article implies that KNOK's owner has a local marketing agreement for the station, but the citation is clearly bad and no other details are given. And "KNOK" has only claimed 1500 kHz since two weeks ago (May 2010). From June 2009 to May 2010, "KNOK" was allegedly on 1680; the nearest licensed 1680 is WOKB at Winter Garden, Florida, 400 mi to the north, next to Orlando, with only 10kW day and 1kW night, unlikely to be of any use to the Florida Keys. Before that, the old article revisions claimed it was on 1630, for which there is nothing licensed within 500 miles of Key West (and that even includes Cuban and Mexican stations notified to the United States). So is this "station" just a program service on other radio stations, or did it used to be a Part 15 station, or a pirate just doing what they do down there in the Conch Republic, or what? All 4 of the article citations are dead. --Closeapple (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I have read, it is a Part 15, but you are right, with WKIZ down there, that would wipe any Part 15 off the air. So, I am not sure what to think on this one. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It used to be a Part 15 station. - Dravecky (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I Think They Are Doing an LMA With WKIZ - LibertyNT —Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

Dravecky seems to have it right: they were a Part 15 station, I guess on various frequencies, then did a full-time LMA with WKIZ to get bigger coverage. --Closeapple (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)