Points of interest related to Radio on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Radio.

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

Radio AFDs

Dick Ballantine

Dick Ballantine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Radio Forest

Radio Forest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the article claiming it to be "the best oldies radio station on the air", nothing out there for this hospital radio station (or its alternate names, Forest Gold and Forest One) other than brief passing mentions on Radio Today (website), directory lists of all radio stations that exist, and basic mentions such as government lists of charities. The article as it stands has no references, and unfortunately I have been unable to find any. Flip Format (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Various streaming sites, social media, that's about all there is for sourcing. Nothing we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCCC-LP

KCCC-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Defunct low-power radio station with zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Kansas. AusLondonder (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I stand by my endorsement of the prior PROD: this stub is little more than a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2009. You simply can't create — or even keep — a stub based mainly if not entirely on databases (and to some extent even other FCC records) today (and any insistence otherwise is no longer policy or guideline-based, to the extent it ever was). The PROD was contested to propose a redirect or merger to the list of radio stations in Kansas, but its "defunct" section does not currently include this station, and I don't really think it would be truly worth it to change that. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. DrChuck68 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan

Talakayan Ng Bayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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]

Muhammad Farooq (journalist)

Muhammad Farooq (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP appears to be overly promotional, with many of the cited sources merely mentioning the subject without providing substantial coverage. clearly, the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG. Disregard the unreliable references used in the BLP. Additionally, it's worth noting that much of the article was contributed by Shaistakausar.pk (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Clearly unencyclopedic and just for the promotion of the subject.  samee  converse  19:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Petit

Loretta Petit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The sources of this article are broken and mostly self-promotional. Hence, it fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Christianity, and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 5 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!} 22:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGN

KBGN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(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)[reply]

Trust AM

Trust AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I disagree that it fails on notability issues as it covers a number of sites and has a history of broadcasting on AM rather than just as an internal carrier-current station. However, the article needs more references to fully secure its place on Wikipedia.Rillington (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Rillington, please feel free to find references for this article - I couldn't, which is why it's here! Flip Format (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Hospital Radio

Northumberland Hospital Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Redirects

Radio proposed deletions

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