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

WYBX

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

Does not seem to be notable. All three refs only provide technical information about the subject. DWF91 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, the parent company. WYBX is not independently notable, and relevant technical information is already there. schetm (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network#Stations: the station did exist for about seven-ten years before BBN took over, but probably did not attain any significant coverage in that time; any notability here, if there were any, would be carried over from that era entirely. The article going back to that era, however, still makes this little more than a remnant of the considerably lower inclusion standards of 2008, when this topic area considered FCC licenses to be a notability sign; that largely faded away after the 2021 RfC that deemed the GNG to be the notability standard here. I think this came under the NPP radar because of an aborted BLAR by Chuterix (talk · contribs), the undo of which was never fully explained, but the reality is it was a correct BLAR, as the rationale not notable on its own appears accurate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, as the same reasons as schem and WcQuidditch (fails WP:GNG). Chuterix (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Pike

AfDs for this article:

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

Article subject has requested deletion in Talk citing they are not a public figure and all the content is old. I will remain neutral in this discussion.Oakshade (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, those other AfD discussions from 20 yrs ago are wacky. She's public so she's notable... I don't see much sourcing to show notability here, nor can I find any. Being a radio host is likely notable, but I don't see enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It was sad to see people sometimes still hanging on to the failed and wrongheaded fame and importance criteria. But many people grasped the right idea, even then. Witness JzG (talk · contribs) at Special:Diff/81991314 applying the now widely-accepted idea of notability. And indeed coming to the same conclusion as you. ☺ Nowadays, people would meet all of the "radio host" claims with "Yes, but what about sources?" and JzG's would be the far weightier and clearly policy-grounded argument. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You are entirely correct, my argument would be (and is) the same. I don't think Wikipedia should ever be the first place to write a biography of a living person. None of the sources cited is about the subject, and only one goes beyond a namecheck or directory entry. We really should not be weaving articles from such gossamer threads.
  
  Subject-specific notability guidelines usually elide over the general notability guidance, founded in turn on fundamental policy of verifiability and neutrality, to serve the goal of uniformity of coverage. That seems to me to be use of Wikipedia to fix the real-world problem that not everyone gets the notice they deserve. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems at best questionable whether she is actually notable, and she certainly doesn't seem to be a particularly public figure. Even if sources are found showing that she is marginally notable, I think this is a case where we should follow the subject's wishes per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. MCE89 (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the current direction of her earliest employer and the rest of her employment history has been quiet and managerial, this is a perfectly valid request, and it should be respectfully carried out. Nate • (chatter) 01:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, apparently before our notability guidelines were fully established — and BLPs aren't supposed to have ever had "loose inclusion standards". I'll add that this has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since May 2018; a BLPREQUESTDELETE in that circumstance is more than reasonable, and I wouldn't be completely surprised if this discussion does not need the full seven days. (I'll also add that the nomination page is misnamed; this is actually the third nomination.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They did before Siegenthaler, which was just the year before the second AFD discussion and a couple of weeks before the first (and discovered 3 months after it, I should point out for clarity). Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Politics, and American football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE jolielover♥talk 04:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she has requested for it to be deleted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems reasonable to respect WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. None of the materials in the article at the moment gives much indication of passing WP:GNG anyways. --Soman (talk) 11:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, although it's unclear whether the person on the talk page is the same as the one in the article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 11:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kolano • talk 14:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence to prove that the subject of this article's subject is notable. Kolano • talk 14:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources, and the expressed preference of the subject. We've had 20 years to find better sources and... not done that. Enough. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Athmeeya Yathra

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

It's like too promotional. And not have enough sources. References given there, which is affiliated with Athmeeya Yathra and not independent. WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. I strongly believe that, the creator of this article is associated with Athmeeya Yathra. And created it for its Promotional purposes through Wikipedia, which is against Wikipedia Policy.[1] United Blasters (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Christianity, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. "Too promotional" and "not enough sources" (when there are several sources in the article) are not reasons to delete; see in particular WP:DINC. The nominator has offered no evidence of a WP:BEFORE and I'm certainly not going to do that work to support an improperly formed and groundless nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give atleast 3 reliable sources for it? United Blasters (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a valid deletion rationale? You haven’t and until then there is no reason to contest the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the 'speedy keep' rationale, but I maintain that this article should be deleted, not just cleaned up, due to concerns about notability and promotional content. There is no Reliable Sources and it is not written in a neutral point of view. Also, the channel is already shutdown. WP:GNG,

WP:NPOV United Blasters (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Give me reliable source United Blasters (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE :

I confirm that I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. United Blasters (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If there are promotional contents, clean-up the article as per Wiki policies. No reason to delete the article.
Anish Viswa 04:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that but still, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish the notability of Athmeeya Yathra WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Check the references in Athmeeya Yathra, which is affiliated with Athmeeya Yathra and not independent. I searched for reliable sources, but couldn't find, so I moved to here. United Blasters (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K. P. Yohannan: The article only cites the channel's own "about" pages. Fails GNG and WP:V due to the lack of independent, reliable sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS Link

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, making it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any independent sources about this podcast. I'd expect a WSJ-affiliated podcast to have sigcov but it doesn't look like it does. Unless someone else has better luck, maybe it should be a redirect to The Wall Street Journal? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about this podcast, aside from it being a competitor to NYT's The Daily. (i think?) In the Hollywood Reporter, I found this, and also this about another WSJ podcast called "With Great Power" which is "part of The Journal". It also appears to be an "Honoree" of a 2024 Webby Award. Limmidy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review sources brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Radio

Radio AFDs

WYBX

Jill Pike

Athmeeya Yathra

CS Link

The Journal (podcast)

Miscellaneous

Redirects

Radio proposed deletions

Radio station templates