Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KZKZ (Philippines)

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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KZKZ (Philippines)

[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)

Fails WP:BCAST. I cannot find any source that supports GNG for this. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a 1968 journal article on Philippine radio history that covers KZKZ as well as a 1925 newspaper article on the topic. I also fixed the other source links. Pinging SeanJ 2007. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This radio station is taught in Schools nationwide right? why is these not deemed notable?. Ploreky^{Have a problem?}01:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: Before I nominate this for deletion, I checked other sources, but it takes me a hard time finding a source that can pass GNG. On my search, I search "KZKZ", the search results popped out seems not satisfying for it. Now, since Sammi Brie added some source that can pass BCAST/GNG, nice job HAHAHAHA! SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brother, this really shouldn't be part of the deletion list. This is an important article. Just read this so that you can know its value. Now, if it's the sources you're doubting, these will be enough:KZKZ_(Philippines), https://dbpedia.org/page/KZKZ_(Philippines), http://harryeherman.com/https://thejournalisticview.com/history-of-radio-in-the-philippines/, https://pinoyvoices.wordpress.com/interviews/radio-drama-article/philippine-radio-broadcasting-a-report/.

Brother, this is an important article, you should've atleast consulted someone before nominating this for deletion. And don't always strictly stick to the rules, always remember Wikipedia has no firm rules. Ploreky^{Have a problem?}01:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 02:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: None of those look like reliable sources. I see a Wikipedia mirror or two in there. Please read WP:RS before you suggest sources in an AfD discussion again. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment, Let's disregard the sources. This article is important, I don't know how many times I need to say it, I don't even know why @SeanJ 2007 nominated it for deletion. This is the first Radio station of the Philippines, this is taught in all of the schools in the country, If this article would be rated, its importance will be Top, that's why this deletion is no joke. You could've atleast only added an issue template, because it is irrational for a wikipedian to act rashly.

As I always say during these kinds of debate, Wikipedia doesn't have any firm rules, as sated in it's fifth pillar. I don't even know Wikipedians nowadays are so strict in rules. Ploreky (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: Yeah, but we still need to follow the rules of Wikipedia. If no notability can be found, there's a chance it may be deleted. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: Read WP:NOTABILITY :) SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to pass me that, I know that. What you should be reading is WP:ARTN, WP:NEXIST, WP:WHYN because your reasoning contradicts these important and specific Wikipedia rules that you probably haven't even read. Ploreky^{Have a problem?}01:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC) 09:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On my search, a WP:BEFORE shows nothing that can pass either GNG/BCAST. But, on the sources added by Brie, I have no idea if it can pass those rules. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed for 15 years. If it is really not notable then the Sysops should've already deleted it ages ago. Ploreky (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ploreky: Again, I performed a search for sources that can pass WP:GNG, but I saw nothing. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, the source should be a reliable source. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources don’t pass GNG, articles do. WP:RS is the policy relevant to sources. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources listed in the article pass WP:RS and I have no reason to believe that this article doesn’t pass all rated notability policies. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BCAST and WP:GNG per above arguments. Sources in the article are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2022 (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.