Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KECO

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. Not particularly speedy given run time, but no reason made for deletion. As TulsaPoliticsFan notes, this does not preclude a nomination, if needed, for legit policy based reasons. Star Mississippi 19:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KECO

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not wanted. Blocks Google My Business from SERP Paragon965 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<topic>|list of <topic>-related deletion discussions]]. <signature>
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how this is a valid reason to remove the page. Ternera (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't even decipher what Paragon965 meant by Blocks Google My Business from SERP. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I google search my business name "KECO" this Wikipedia block comes up. I'd rather have my Google Business Profile show up. Paragon965 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's hilarious. Reminded me of NASA killed Michael Jackson. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. per WP:SKCRIT. I mean where is rationale? Not wanted? See WP:IDONTLIKEIT Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per WP:CSK#1 or WP:CSK#3. No deletion rationale is being proposed here. User:Let'srun 19:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I don't think there's anything in the deletion policy that requires us to get rid of articles for reasons relating solely to what shows up in Google search results. As has already been mentioned, "not wanted" is not a valid deletion reason on its own; there has to be a policy-based rationale. (Note that the nominator has a conflict of interest; besides their stated desire to have my Google Business Profile show up, this radio station is owned by a company called Paragon Communications and its frequency is 96.5 MHz, both of which would appear to tie in to the Paragon965 username.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of any sort of sourcing is enough to delete the radio station article. I'm not sure why this is a speedy keep when there are no useful sources. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable radio station, with only sourcing to a database and a profile. Links I find are only news stories from the radio station. Nominator should speak with Google about the screw up, Wikipedia can't help with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I struggle to understand the reasoning for this AfD. Speedy Keep for the article, TROUTing for the editor. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid deletion rationale. While I was here, I tried to scrounge up what I could, but without local newspaper all I have are a bunch of sale transactions. This has been a country music station since it hit the air in 1982, so not a very turbulent history. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It occurs to me after seeing the username that Paragon965 is a station representative (the station is owned by Paragon Broadcasting and broadcasts on 96.5 MHz). As an encyclopedia, we can't control what Google does or doesn't do in displaying rich content. What we can control is considering whether a page meets our policies and guidelines in a deletion discussion and determining whether a valid rationale for deletion has been supplied. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is not valid grounds for deletion at all — we do not delete articles just because their existence is interfering with somebody else's SEO desires, because helping you increase your business's Google presence is simply not our job. I also don't understand why, if the nominator is associated with a different business that this radio station is "interfering" with, their username blatantly implies a direct connection to this radio station. I see the argument that the article isn't sourced brilliantly, but this isn't the right place to handle any quibbles about that — if somebody wants to mount an argument that this radio station fails WP:NMEDIA (which it is not at all obvious that it would), then they should do that in a new AFD discussion that makes that argument from the start, and dignifying this nomination at all is the wrong answer. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:NMEDIA is no longer a notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Further note: "[NMEDIA]...is a tool to help determine whether a media outlet is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Keep due to bad nominating rationale, but the keep here should not be used as justification to keep in any future AfD with a legitimate rationale. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nom's reason for deletion is blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SBKSPP (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2023 (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.