Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZYY-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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

KZYY-LP

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BROADCAST.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete I could not find news coverage of it or other sources to support its notability. Its existence is verified, but Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists. Not a full power station, covers a small service are in support of a church's mission.  Edison (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets NMEDIA, which is an offshoot of GNG., Radio stations enjoy inherent notability per GNG and NMEDIA and numerous AfD outcomes, plus via community consensus. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:31 on November 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I updated the infobox, updated all the sources (some were out of date), I found three news articles in the Tyler Morning Telegraph, that reference KZYY-LP.  One is a story about the station itself.  How hard did you all look?  Added a logo, updated all the infobox links (some were out of date).  Got a webstream link, as that wasn't on the page.  Page is now beyond GNG and NMEDIA. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:46 on November 28, 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - and how hard did you study WP:GNG and WP:BROADCAST? There's not a single in-depth story about the story.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: ...and when did "in-depth" get added to GNG or NMEDIA? Also, what part of newspaper and "one is a story about the station itself" did you not understand?  Perhaps you should less time being snarky and more time looking at the refs, cause you clearly aren't. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 07:17 on November 29, 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - the snark was yours, my friend, being thrown back at you. Read the refs, not impressed, the newspaper article is a brief mention of the station. Half the article is about a food pantry opening. In-depth is part of WP:SIGCOV, which is part of WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 13:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a "brief mention"?  If you took "How hard did you all look?" as snark, then you haven't heard snark.  Believe me, that isn't snark.  That was an honest question.  You. Didn't. Look.  Now you are fighting with me, snark fully included to cover that fact.  You "reviewed" the article and immediately nom'd it for deletion.  You didn't look for any SIGCON yourself, you left that WP:BURDEN to the community.  I know a deletionist when I see one, a snarky one too.  One who can't be faced with the fact that there is SIGCON in a local newspaper and you can't mention it because that would prove you wrong.  Snarky enough for ya? -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:34 on November 29, 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject is a licensed radio station that is an originator of its own programming, and thus meets WP:BROADCAST. This is verifiable through reliable sources independent of the subject. Furthermore, it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, as is evident by the article User:Neutralhomer linked to.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per Neutralhomer. Has a lot of sources, ranging from FCC, Arbitron & news websites. Passes WP:NMEDIA. SUPER ASTIG
 * Keep. Radio stations do have to have sources, which this does, but there is no requirement in WP:BCAST that the sources have to attain whatever standard of in-depth analysis Onel is applying here over and above what these sources already show. The principle at NMEDIA is that, and this is an exact quote from NMEDIA, "As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope. Accordingly, the notability standards for media organizations and content are designed to be as inclusive, not restrictive, as possible within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources." Would it be nice if every radio station on earth had at least one full book written about its entire history by a professional radio historian? Sure, of course it would. But the existence of such a book is not a core requirement for a radio station to be notable: the requirements are that the station has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority for its country, that it has originated at least some of its own programming instead of operating strictly as a rebroadcaster of another station, that it is actually on the air and not just a silent paper license or construction permit, and that all three of those facts are verifiable in sources independent of itself. And this station passes all four of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Absolutely correct regarding BCAST, but SNG's supposedly don't supersede GNG. And GNG does require those types of sources. Onel 5969  TT me</i> 11:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are sources here which count toward GNG just fine. My point was that you're applying some standard above and beyond basic GNG, if you think the sources here aren't already adequate. I'll grant that not all of the references here are brilliant ones, but enough of them are good. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.