345:. I'd gladly add sources if that's necessary, and I'll continue to do so. All you have to do is tell me. An AfD should be the last resort. If you can't find any third party sources for the station, fine. I don't own these articles, I just want them to be improved. As far as abusive edit summaries, you link directly to my talk page, somewhere I'm free to express my opinions and concern that these articles are just put on the chopping block withoutdue process. I also don't like clutter on my talk page, and move it frequently to archives. I poured many hours into editing this site over the past two decades, and it's just amazing it can all be taken away because of one person's opinion of what qualifies for notability. And yes, I get that things have changed since 2008, but the
768:- I think the general consensus is that the article has been improved enough. I don't know how more reliable a source the Idaho Statesman is. That one should end this tirade. There are several third-party sources in this article now that prove that the station exists, and it has a history. This includes the United States Senate for pete sake. I'm not sure why there is a hang up on this one. Scott Fybush is a reliable source. He has been in radio for decades, and publishes a weekly column, on top of touring tower sites and gathering history. He's a journalist. There are several third-party sources in this article, including big ones that offer significant coverage. This should have been resolved by now.
524:. The Scott Fybush source is a very poor source for demonstrating notability. It is about his trip looking at radio towers and specifically "The AM Towers of Boise, Idaho" - KBGN is only mentioned very briefly and only in the context of its transmission tower. Nothing to do with discussion of the station or its history, operations or broadcasts. The radio yearbook is again a very simple directory listing. That's the exact opposite of what significant coverage is.
813:: I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Knowledge (XXG), but there is clearly enough sourcing in this article to prove notability - principally articles specifically about the station in multiple newspapers. Sammi Brie is a subject matter expert and has found good sources here, this article should be kept.
325:. If you want to talk about "abusive", maybe start with your nomination process for these articles. You give them no chance for improvement, you just click AfD and move onto the next one. As someone who has edited this site since mid-2000s, this isn't the first time someone had a mission to delete articles in relation to
469:
So it's a personal attack to call out abusive edit summaries but it's not a personal attack to write abusive edit summaries? You know full well its got nothing to do with legitimate disagreement. I can see why you've been subject to such significant restrictions given your behaviour here and at other
320:
FYI Scott Fybush is pretty well known in the radio world. He writes a column called northeast radio watch, among other things. He's a journalist. He has toured hundreds of tower sites across the country, visiting studios and gathering historical information on these stations. To say he's un-notable,
431:
I believe you are mistaken on what a source is and how it connects to notability. The Idaho State
Broadcasters Association is a secondary source, as is Broadcasting Yearbook (a periodical of it's time) and Scott Fybush's website, who is known and trusted within the industry for his news coverage
667:
That short one is at least noteworthy for dating purposes, but I would say the others are SIGCOV; we have a feature article on the station, an article entirely on the new station starting broadcasting, and an article about the radio station's transmitter causing site issues with the new airport.
349:
references (thank you Sammi) should put the nail in the coffin for this one. That's as third-party as you can get. The same with Scott Fybush's posts. One would think a journalist is a reliable third party source, but here we are. -Edit splice- added two more sources that are pretty notable.
245:. Current sources are the FCC, radio-locator.com, and Broadcasting Yearbook. These do not demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (Sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability)
321:
or a poor source, is a slap in the face. The editor at the bottom of this discussion below me, Sammi Brie, brings up an excellent point. I feel like due diligence isn't given to these articles, and instead its a knee-jerk decision to post an afd. I second her post about
856:○ Auslonderder, before putting an AfD to stations note that there was work involved and check the sources. They are reliable sources; also a little note, the Broadcasting Yearnook and Scott Fybush's website is notable. So yea, check
401:
210:
556:. I wouldn't be surprised if GNG-appropriate sourcing is lurking out there somewhere, but our inclusion standards are far stricter now than they were in 2008, and retaining anything more than an
333:, that's what you're supposed to do. You too can add sources to articles if you find them. If I had the power to post AfD templates, I wouldn't abuse it per that policy. I'm glad I found that
709:
Relisting to get more feedback on additions to this article since the nomination. I don't see more support for
Deletion here so it looks like the realistic options are Keep or Redirect.
449:
Oh and let's forego the hand-wringing and pearl-clutching, along with calling people "abusive", when someone disagrees with you. It's getting old and verging into NPA territory. -
167:
397:
653:
I'm not sure as GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected"
297:
405:
393:
296:
I really wish we could have an AfD in this topic area without aspersions being cast on editors. Some of your edit summaries in response to my notifications have
204:
99:
114:
389:
782:
364:
300:. Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per
277:
329:. Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way? Accord to
94:
87:
17:
588:
520:
A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State
Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source. It's also obviously not
882:
679:
636:
830:
The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability. There's no reason to delete it.
540:
598:
Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created.
108:
104:
55:
734:
698:
432:(and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable. These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.
905:
645:
One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station,
40:
171:
225:
649:. Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting
192:
646:
560:
140:
135:
144:
658:
603:
529:
505:
475:
457:
413:
309:
263:- I'm not sure why there is suddenly a crusade to delete radio station articles. Sources have been added.
250:
818:
583:
127:
36:
186:
876:
675:
632:
65:
218:
857:
848:
618:
549:
342:
334:
330:
322:
776:
749:
358:
271:
182:
888:
839:
835:
822:
803:
754:
723:
683:
662:
654:
640:
607:
599:
593:
533:
525:
511:
499:
479:
471:
463:
451:
417:
409:
372:
337:
exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive. And no, I know you're
313:
305:
285:
254:
246:
83:
69:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
900:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
326:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
814:
572:
232:
650:
545:
301:
242:
901:
861:
669:
626:
346:
61:
553:
851:, and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).
770:
744:
352:
265:
831:
198:
161:
131:
794:
714:
341:
not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per
123:
75:
896:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
544:: I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the
737:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
701:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
792:(I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains.
566:
without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming
157:
153:
149:
217:
743:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
712:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
231:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
908:). No further edits should be made to this page.
388:Note: This discussion has been included in the
8:
115:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
552:, not brief mentions, directories, or non-
387:
617:Seriously—did someone even bother doing
621:where they should have done it, like
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
241:Lacking secondary sources to meet
24:
392:lists for the following topics:
100:Introduction to deletion process
541:List of radio stations in Idaho
497:: Per work done by Milonica. -
1:
625:? I found four refs easily.
790:03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
90:(AfD)? Read these primers!
925:
889:09:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
840:08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
823:15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
804:06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
755:00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
684:03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
663:02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
641:01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
608:20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
594:20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
534:20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
522:independent of the subject
512:19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
480:19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
464:19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
418:19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
373:04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
314:05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
286:23:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
255:19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
70:09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
724:23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
570:-policy-based over time.
898:Please do not modify it.
402:United States of America
32:Please do not modify it.
172:edits since nomination
88:Articles for deletion
554:independent sourcing
550:significant coverage
847:: First of up, per
623:The Idaho Statesman
518:Comment on sourcing
707:Relisting comment:
807:
757:
726:
514:
466:
420:
298:just been abusive
105:Guide to deletion
95:How to contribute
59:
56:non-admin closure
916:
873:
802:
791:
789:
787:
779:
773:
752:
747:
742:
740:
738:
722:
711:
704:
702:
672:
629:
591:
586:
579:
575:
565:
559:
508:
502:
498:
460:
454:
450:
390:deletion sorting
371:
369:
361:
355:
284:
282:
274:
268:
236:
235:
221:
165:
147:
85:
53:
34:
924:
923:
919:
918:
917:
915:
914:
913:
912:
906:deletion review
862:
793:
786:
783:
777:
771:
769:
750:
745:
733:
731:
713:
697:
695:
670:
647:especially this
627:
589:
584:
577:
573:
563:
561:R to list entry
557:
506:
500:
458:
452:
368:
365:
359:
353:
351:
347:Idaho Statesman
281:
278:
272:
266:
264:
178:
138:
122:
119:
82:
79:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
922:
920:
911:
910:
892:
891:
853:
852:
842:
825:
808:
784:
760:
759:
741:
728:
710:
705:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
612:
611:
610:
536:
515:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
422:
421:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
366:
289:
288:
279:
239:
238:
175:
118:
117:
112:
102:
97:
80:
78:
73:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
921:
909:
907:
903:
899:
894:
893:
890:
886:
885:
884:Contributions
880:
879:
874:
872:
868:
867:
859:
855:
854:
850:
846:
843:
841:
837:
833:
829:
826:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
805:
801:
799:
798:
788:
785:I DX for fun!
780:
774:
767:
766:
762:
761:
758:
756:
753:
748:
739:
736:
729:
727:
725:
721:
719:
718:
708:
703:
700:
693:
692:
685:
681:
677:
673:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
630:
624:
620:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
592:
587:
582:
581:
580:
569:
562:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:
537:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
513:
509:
503:
496:
493:
492:
481:
477:
473:
468:
467:
465:
461:
455:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
374:
370:
367:I DX for fun!
362:
356:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
280:I DX for fun!
275:
269:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
180:Find sources:
176:
173:
169:
163:
159:
155:
151:
146:
142:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
116:
113:
110:
106:
103:
101:
98:
96:
93:
92:
91:
89:
84:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
63:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
897:
895:
883:
877:
870:
865:
863:
844:
827:
810:
796:
795:
764:
763:
732:
730:
716:
715:
706:
696:
694:
655:AusLondonder
622:
614:
600:AusLondonder
576:
571:
567:
539:Redirect to
538:
526:AusLondonder
521:
517:
501:Neutralhomer
494:
472:AusLondonder
453:Neutralhomer
410:AusLondonder
338:
306:AusLondonder
260:
247:AusLondonder
240:
228:
222:
214:
207:
201:
195:
189:
179:
81:
49:
47:
31:
28:
815:Flip Format
674:(she/her •
631:(she/her •
205:free images
875:(He/Him |
671:Sammi Brie
628:Sammi Brie
62:Geschichte
902:talk page
858:WP:BEFORE
849:WP:BEFORE
619:WP:BEFORE
578:Quidditch
548:requires
398:Companies
343:WP:BEFORE
335:WP:BEFORE
331:WP:BEFORE
323:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
904:or in a
772:ḾỊḼʘɴίcả
735:Relisted
699:Relisted
354:ḾỊḼʘɴίcả
339:probably
267:ḾỊḼʘɴίcả
168:View log
109:glossary
39:or in a
832:Gedaali
404:, and
327:WP:WPRS
211:WP refs
199:scholar
141:protect
136:history
86:New to
871:Cospaw
864:mer764
751:plicit
651:WP:GNG
470:AfDs.
302:WP:GNG
243:WP:GNG
183:Google
145:delete
866:KCTV5
406:Idaho
394:Radio
226:JSTOR
187:books
162:views
154:watch
150:links
16:<
878:Talk
845:Keep
836:talk
828:Keep
819:talk
811:Keep
778:Talk
765:Keep
659:talk
615:Keep
604:talk
568:less
530:talk
507:Talk
495:Keep
476:talk
459:Talk
414:talk
360:Talk
310:talk
273:Talk
261:Keep
251:talk
219:FENS
193:news
158:logs
132:talk
128:edit
124:KBGN
76:KBGN
66:talk
50:keep
869:/
860:.
546:GNG
233:TWL
166:– (
887:)
881:•
838:)
821:)
806:)
800:iz
781:•
775:•
720:iz
682:)
678:•
661:)
639:)
635:•
606:)
574:WC
564:}}
558:{{
532:)
510:•
504:•
478:)
462:•
456:•
416:)
408:.
400:,
396:,
363:•
357:•
312:)
304:.
276:•
270:•
253:)
213:)
170:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
148:|
143:|
139:|
134:|
130:|
68:)
60:
52:.
834:(
817:(
797:L
746:✗
717:L
680:c
676:t
657:(
637:c
633:t
602:(
590:✎
585:☎
528:(
474:(
412:(
308:(
249:(
237:)
229:·
223:·
215:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
185:(
177:(
174:)
164:)
126:(
111:)
107:(
64:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.