This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Radio. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Radio|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Radio. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Radio/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Radio AFDs

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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penistone FM

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

In the process of updating this article about a radio station to reflect recent changes to its broadcasting frequencies, I noticed its references were somewhat thin, so went looking and found that there was very little SIGCOV out there to sustain it under WP:GNG. All I can find are a single article about it receiving grant funding in 2021 [1] and a few passing mentions in articles about other things [2] [3]. I'm just not sure there's enough weight here in terms of references to back up notability, particularly given that the radio station has been broadcasting since 2009 so at some point in that time should have done something coverage-worthy, if it was notable in any way. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little coverage available anywhere to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would support redirecting to an appropriate list if one exists. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Scotland

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [4]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No issue with notability, and the article contains a history, stations broadcast, transmitter information and references. Rillington (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2024 (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.

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 merge‎ to Hits Radio South Yorkshire. ✗plicit 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big John @ Breakfast

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

There's nothing to suggest that this radio morning show is notable over and above the station on which it appears. Anything that can be sourced can be merged to the article on Hallam FM, but I can't find anything out there that is independent SIGCOV for this show itself. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A show which has on air for 24 years, and has won many industry awards, is clearly notable. Rillington (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to go back and look at WP:GNG and read how Wikipedia defines "notability". Several of your comments are along these lines - it's a broadcasting radio station, so it's notable; it's been on the air for years, so it's notable. These assertions don't tie in with the actual guideline, which is that the subject has to have had "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject". Before nominating, I look for this in various sources, and if I've nominated something, it's because I've been unable to find it during my own research. In other cases, I find coverage and add it to flesh out an article that's otherwise unsourced. If others (including you) can find WP:SIGCOV for the subject of an article I've nominated, then that's great, but just asserting "it's notable" carries little weight. I haven't found anything for Big John @ Breakfast other than brief mentions in local papers and the radio trade press, nothing that would assert notability. It appears to be a WP:MILL radio morning show like many others around the world that don't have their own articles. Flip Format (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think we will always clash over Afd as I continue to hold the view that you seem to want articles deleted far too readily, although I note that you seem to have somewhat reigned in this instinct, which is good. As you know, I am against AfD as a matter of course, not least as people have made an effort to produce, and update these articles, and to want them deleted is a bit like throwing all their efforts back at them by using a very narrow, even draconian, interpretation of rules to justify having their efforts deleted. My view is to be positive about articles and it is very rare that I would ever advocate for anyone's efforts to be deleted, and this article does have sufficient independent references to further justify its inclusion. Rillington (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As with most AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire where the show is mentioned. Sources don't provide the significant coverage required to pass the GNG. Regarding awards, there needs to be reporting independent of the award giver and radio station. As the programme is ongoing there's still a chance of it becoming notable, so a redirect to the radio station is preferable to outright deletion. Rupples (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) To elaborate, the listing of award recipients is OK but doesn't tell us why the programme received the award. If reviews of and discussions about the show/awards are sourced, it would help demonstrate notability. Rupples (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC). The limited content looks reliably sourced so can be merged rather than just redirected. Changing my view to merge and redirect on reflection. Rupples (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hits Radio South Yorkshire, not independantly notable. Desertarun (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2024 (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.

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 redirect‎ to List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHMG

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

Very little content. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam: I can't imagine this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill religious station, and I'd be surprised if any significant coverage exists here to allow for anything more than a glorified directory entry. An {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion is probably more than enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories was what I suggested in my deprod. AusLondonder believes deletion is preferred for this and a bunch of similar cases they're working through. I've brought this up but I haven't heard a good explanation for this preference. ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought a redirect appropriate you were certainly welcome to do so. That's really up to you. I have explained my own view on my talkpage. KHMG could just as easily refer to this New Zealand real estate company which is about just as notable as this station. It could also be referring to this medical centre in California. As I pointed out some of these articles have been deleted, some redirected. I'm also concerned that the state-by-state lists are largely or completely unsourced, unverifiable and out of date. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone think if I had WP:BLARED KHMG as part of my deprod it would be WP:LIKELY to be deleted at WP:MFD if someone nominated it? I don't think it would be but I can't remember having any of my WP:BLARS at WP:MFD and I don't have a lot of WP:MFD experience so I really don't know.

When I have time, I do often WP:BLAR topics categories have experience with like non-notable songs to their album, non-notable books to their author, etc. With the 7-day prod timer ticking, I don't always have time to do those extra steps and this radio station issue is fairly new to me. ~Kvng (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This much is for certain: MfD would be the wrong venue in that scenario; redirects are discussed at the separate RfD process. Even there, though, it appears to be relatively common (though not necessarily a fait accompli, depending on the exact circumstances) that an RfD would result in a reversion to the article as a contested BLAR, which may either be accompanied by a suggestion to send it to AfD or even a more-immediate procedural AfD, so it is not out of the question that we'd end up here anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot that RfD was separate from MfD. I'm just trying to determine if there is a good justification for deleting this as opposed to redirecting. AusLondonder argues that KHMG is ambiguous so that's one potential reason. If that's enough reason to delete a redirect at RfD than we might as well delete it here and now. My impression is that WP:CHEAP usually prevails at RfD but I don't have enough experience in redirect deletion discussions to know what counterarguments do prevail. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell

AfDs for this article:

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

While the WP:SURMOUNTABLE issues noted in the first AfD are addressed (incl. the self-penned stuff about "his passion for cars and the motor industry", "[being] instrumental in establishing Navan's Energy Radio [..] from a garden shed" and "his love of drama"), there is still nothing to indicate that the applicable notability criteria are met. In terms of:

WP:CREATIVE (applying to creative professionals) there are no sources to suggest that the subject is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successor".
WP:ENT (applying to voice actors) the subject doesn't appear to have had "significant roles in multiple notable films [..] or other productions".
WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG, the only sources we have (and the only sources found after several years of trying to address COI/AUTOBIO/PROMO/NOTCV concerns) are either not independent (like pulseny.com, radioluxembourg.co.uk, allaccess.com, which are all webpages/press releases from the subject's employers) or not significant (like radiowaves.fm, manchestereveningnews.co.uk, Independent Woman, worcesternews.co.uk, Business Post, in which the subject is BARELY mentioned in passing). The ONLY two pieces which deal with the subject in any depth, and which are not news releases by the subject's employers, are the two low-ball interview pieces. On benztown.com and Meath Chronicle. One a small local paper and the other a speciality industry outlet. Both the type interviews, per WP:INTERVIEW#Notability, which are "broadly unhelpful in establishing notability".

I am, TBH, annoyed at myself for staying on the fence in the second AfD. And remain baffled by the "keep" recommendations in the first AfD (indicating that two of the five refs somehow and unequivocally supported GNG; When they're the same refs we have today; Still clearly not independent and/or passing mentions.) Anyway, while I'm loathe to relitigate, as the last AfD was "no consensus", and as (despite significant effort) I can't justify removing the hatnotes, I'm left with AfD (again).

TLDR version. Subject is a jobbing radio presenter. Like any other. Who also works as a voice artist. Doing station idents and the like. And was once an extra in a film. With insufficient coverage to expand the article beyond a NOTCV "list of jobs" the subject's had. And no independent biographical coverage contributing to notability. The WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO issues (clear in the article's initial creation) also remain difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see notability, this is simply a CV in prose-form. I can't find mention of this person in any RS; what's used now is trivial or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COI and NOTCV issues, just another DJ, not a notable person. Spleodrach (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm into radio, so I know of this guy. But searching through the usual places you can find old radio news, there's just nothing for him other than brief mentions of him in "remember Atlantic 252?"-type filler articles. Similar in the Irish News Archives where he appears listed in local radio schedules but little else. Flip Format (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKGU

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

No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I stand by my seconding of the since-contested PROD — this is a remnant of how loose the inclusion "standards" still were in this topic area in 2019, which were still seemingly based more on being (or at least having been at some point) a licensed station (notwithstanding that this only establishes existence, which is neither notability nor proof of notability), without much regard as to there being anything more to verifiably say (and the odds for a newer radio station such as this one getting the required significant coverage are long enough as it is). Our list of radio stations in U.S. territories is one that only includes operational stations, so there's nothing to redirect to or any other plausible deletion alternative. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable radio station. TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2024 (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.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Storer

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

Biography of a writer and radio producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or radio producers. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only "reference" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than just "he existed", or having to cite more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 April 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Ballantine

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found to offer for the consideration of notability per the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot really find any coverage.

🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two different search engines only bring up listings for the compilation album That's Not Funny, That's Sick when searchin' "Dick Ballantine" with "National Lampoon." Lookin' through different databases, which catalog pages n' pages about National Lampoon in all its forms, Dick Ballantine doesn't turn up any results at all. If we wanted to be nice, we could redirect to That's Not Funny, That's Sick or The National Lampoon Radio Hour, but given that the character ain't particularly described in either article, deletion would make more sense. ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The National Lampoon Radio Hour. Note that while this may have insufficient sourcing for a standalone article, it need not be notable to be included as part of that article. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't even meet WP:V, let alone WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2024 (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.

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan

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

Article unreferenced since 2009 and tagged as such since 2010. No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means "People's Dialogue" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created the article almost 15 years ago without being aware about WP:GNG. I haven't touched the article since then. Safe to say, I barely found any source about the now-defunct radio show. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the creator agrees the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2024 (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.

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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGN

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

Lacking secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. 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) AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure why there is suddenly a crusade to delete radio station articles. Sources have been added. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 23:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 just been abusive. Unfortunately none of the sources you added, such as a listing at the Idaho State Broadcasters Association, seem to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, 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 WP:BEFORE. 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 WP:WPRS. Instead of the knee-jerk, how about being constructive seeing where the articles can be improved and letting editors know that way? Accord to WP:BEFORE, 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 WP:BEFORE exists, because it should give articles like these a chance to survive. And no, I know you're probably not doing it in bad faith, but you're definitely not doing it right per WP:BEFORE. 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 Idaho Statesman 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. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 04:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, United States of America, and Idaho. AusLondonder (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 (and he is a radio journalist by trade), is highly reliable. These are all reliable sources and demonstrate notability.

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. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 AfDs. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per work done by Milonica. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing A directory listing on the website of the Idaho State Broadcasters Association is clearly a primary source. It's also obviously not independent of the subject. 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. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Idaho: I say this with at least some degree of reluctance, but the GNG requires significant coverage, not brief mentions, directories, or non-independent sourcing. 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 {{R to list entry}} without the needed SIGCOV is, if anything, only becoming less-policy-based over time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course if GNG-level sourcing is located then I'm more than happy to withdraw the nomination or see the article re-created. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously—did someone even bother doing WP:BEFORE where they should have done it, like The Idaho Statesman? I found four refs easily. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of them is quite good, but I would say the ones about the radio tower are not significant coverage of the station, especially this. Whether one decent article in a newspaper in the 1970s and nothing substantial since is sufficient for meeting WP:GNG 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" AusLondonder (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - 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. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking your duplicate vote but your comment remains. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
Keep: I am not someone who is generally in favour of keeping unsourced radio ephemera around on Wikipedia, 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. Flip Format (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides clear and plentiful references, which support its claims about notability. There's no reason to delete it.Gedaali (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of up, per WP:BEFORE, and second per everyone else (Sammi, Flip Format, Milonica, NeutralHomer, and others).

○ 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 WP:BEFORE. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 09:15, 14 April 2024 (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.

Miscellaneous

Redirects

Radio proposed deletions

Paul Ingles (via WP:PROD on 22 January 2024)

Radio station templates