Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Radio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 Points of interest related to Radio on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

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.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • 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. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Radio}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Radio.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or 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.

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.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Radio/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


Contents

[edit] Radio AFDs

[edit] Radio show/personalities articles

[edit] Bruno Behrend

Bruno Behrend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish the notability of this radio personality. Newspaper database search brings up only 4 hits (not counting the real estate transaction section, apparently when he bought his house), and all those articles were 1 sentence mentions about a time slot or hosting change. Not the extensive coverage WP:BIO is looking for. Rtphokie (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Emerson

Rick Emerson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod. This article fails to establish why this radio personality, out of thousands, is notable. No 3rd party references. Currently fails WP:BIO. EBSCO, Regional Business News, and ERIC database searches across Billboard, Mediaweek, local business journals, brought up only 1 hit and Emerson wasn't the subject of the article. Google news brought up a couple of hits from a paper in Portland, Oregon and a paper in Spokane. Can this article meet WP:BIO? Subject is a bit difficult to search on because of the common name. Rtphokie (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merseyland Alternative Radio

Merseyland Alternative Radio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable local pirate station, vanity Rapido (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete No reliable sources to be found. --neon white talk 17:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you checked your print copies of Soundwaves? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No idea what you are referring to but currently the article has no assertions of notability. --neon white talk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article cites three websites and one printed reference that verify the existence of the station. Now I'm sure the wording can be improved in places, but a list of relevant links labelled "references" is generally agreed on Wikipedia to be an indication of supporting evidence for verifiability. Do you dispute the existence of these stations, the notability of individual stations within the world of pirate radio, or do you object to pirate radio as a topic in general? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
All the article has is a few links to self published and highly unreliable sources that are not evidence of notability. If this station has not had significant second or third party coverage in verifiable sources, it isnt notable. --neon white talk 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
As I said, check your back-copies of Soundwaves. An independent printed magazine of the period that makes many references to these particular stations. There are technical (copyright) problems in distributing this material further through WP, but it has been verified by at least one editor. Verification in the future isn't easy from so few sites, but nor is it impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not a valid arguement. --neon white talk 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not an argument at all, it's an attempt to organise what is clearly a related discussion into one place, to the benefit of all interested parties. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I dont see the value in focusing on the editors who raised the AFD. Can you expand on your desire to keep this article? Is it based on the article or the editor that raised teh AFD?
These aren't self-published sources, they're fansites. They don't have the solid reputation of Nature, but neither do they raise the CoI concerns that underly WP:SPS Andy Dingley (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do think you sincerely believe the station is notable, as with the rest above in today's AfD. I take your point about SPS and WP:COI. I would however point out that I did also say "personal websites", which these fansites are. Unfortunately these do not satisfy WP:RS. We need better sources than these. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Where does WP:RS express a problem with "personal websites", as you term them? "Self-published", as per WP:RS, is not the same thing at all. AFAIK, none of these are self-published sites. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that this pirate radio station is notable. Lacks verifiable 3rd party references. There is mention of fanzine but insufficient information about that source to verify it. There have been a lot of publications called Soundwaves, we'll need more that the title to verify this. Doesn't appear to be a hoax, but it also doesn't appear to be notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vic Jacobs

Vic Jacobs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not make the notability of this radio personality clear. He's worked at several stations but so have 10's of thousands of others. Zero 3rd party references in the article. The references I've found mention him but only in passing and are all local to the LA market. Nothing that meets WP:BIO's call for the person to be the subject of secondary source material. Is this person really notable or is this article fan cruft? Rtphokie (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. I added a lot of the information to the article originally, but just as far as some biographical information (mostly from his bio from the station's website), but others have added information such as his unabashed cheerleading for Kobe Bryant and the Lakers, which is what Jacobs is mostly known for nowadays. Checking your profile, you're obviously not from the Los Angeles area, otherwise you would have a better understanding about Jacobs and his shtick. Personally, I think Jacobs (or rather his act) is a buffoon and an embarassment to sports radio in this area, but that sort of what makes him more interesting. You (or Wikipedia) take his article off, then you should do it for everyone else. ShawnHill (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment, Where I'm from is immaterial though I'm originally from the LA area and travel there still for what it's worth. Either this person is notable and sufficient verifiable 3rd party references can located and added to the article, or they aren't and the article needs to be deleted.--Rtphokie (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity piece that fails WP:BIO GtstrickyTalk or C 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as it appears from the article and provided sources that subject has a very modest amount of fame but lacks sufficient notability. - Dravecky (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Advertorial Infotainment

Advertorial Infotainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advertisement disguised as an article about a non-notable defunct local radio show Dravecky (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable local radio show with some advertising thrown in. TN‑X-Man 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment And, for the record, I had already deleted the link to Cafepress that the author has so throughfully included for people who might want to make a purchase. - Dravecky (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable self-promotion. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable college radio show. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete An radio show with Internet streaming that existed before RealPlayer launched along with a CafePress store began eight years after the show was cancelled? Something doesn't compute. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11, non-encyclopedic spam--Rtphokie (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Wilde

Hey guys...I have had people try to write crazy things, and if it is suitable...please help me to learn how to prevent this, or to remedy.....I or a staff member can always clean grammar and language..but whenever I or staff sees weird or false info, we have to respond...Thank you for your time, and I hope that I will not have to check this entry every day as I have in the past 2 weeks to counter the vandals...Thank you so much for helping me....Liz wilde/Annie

Liz Wilde (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO - even after all the work the subject herself has done on the article, only a small number of references to secondary sources are provided and those are each very short, the latest 7 years old to when she went to work for NBG Radio Network which went bust 2 years later. Doug Weller (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Seems to be enough second party sources but alot of the article can and should go. Guidelines suggest to keep it to basics with lesser known people. --neon white talk 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is not temporary. Dppowell (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Procedural note. A separate AfD, Liz Wilde (2nd nomination), had been created by mistake. I closed that AfD and delisted it from the log. I will leave a note for each person who commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are too few reliable sources to allow writing a proper article. Since the subject has complained about improper editing of the article, it seems there are at least some BLP concerns. This article also drew COI attention since it appeared that the subject was writing most of the content. The weakness of the sources, the difficulty in meeting WP:BIO, the subject's BLP concerns, the neutrality problems caused by such a large contribution by the subject herself, all appear to be solved by deletion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the article is a mess and it's likely always going to have BLP/COI issues if the subject keeps editing it, but among the false positives there are more than enough sources from which to draw an article. Unless there are valid BLP issues, subject needs to play by Wiki rules/guidelines. Not doing so is not a reason to delete the article TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 18:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as available secondary sources speak compellingly to notability and verifiability. The article is a mess but that's a matter for clean-up, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - There are a number secondary sources (I added a number to this article before the COI edit war started) but these sources mention Wilde's move from station to station. This town to town, up and down the dial is the nature of radio and doesn't indicate notability. I'm not seeing mention of any lasting contribution to the radio industry or any awards per WP:BIO. Claims that she's the only/first female shock jock are WP:original research without references to back them up. Also, given the persistent COI editing. Deletion and salting seems to be in order to prevent future headaches.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Notability is established by coverage in second party sources not by what they say. A coi is never a valid argument for deletion. It's merely a content issue. --neon white talk 02:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although she appears to be one of an increasing number of people who attract attention by simply being outrageous, being Drivetime DJ on a nationally syndicated slot would probably be sufficient to establish notability. However, there is a ton of unattributable and potentially unverifiable stuff, which may need to be deleted. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and remove at least 80% of the myspace-style story-of-my-life content that's in it. — Athaenara ✉ 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. AFD is not a remedy even if the subject of the article is editing her own article. She minimally qualifies, nuff said.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though I realize that the quality of the article is not an AfD concern, it sometimes happens that new references will be unearthed during an AfD discussion. It has not happened this time, since none of the voters have come up with new references. It seems inevitable that, due to the COI problems, the article is going to be rewritten so that everything is based on reliable sources. However there are currently only four sources, all of which require payment to view, and the most recent of them was published in 2001. Unless anyone feels like paying to view the references, we will probably wind up with a three-sentence article saying that she exists, she is a shock jock, and she is on the radio. Is this really the best we can do? EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Pay-per-view articles aren't really too big of a deal since they refer to newspaper articles that could be verified if necessary. Many editors seem to think that finding several mentions of the article's subject in newspapers or magazines is sufficient to establish notabilty, it's not. WP:NOT states that substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. WP:BIO emphasizes this with If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Based on the claims that she is the first and/or only female shock jock, I'm inclined to say she's notable but without reliable 3rd party, non-trivial, sources to back up this claim, it's just a claim. I added the references that I could locate (the only ones that are there) but they are pretty trivial.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Ms Wilde seems to be notable enough. The article is not pretty but maybe when she gets more press coverage a better one can be written. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Do you mind telling why you !voted "delete?" Thank you, RyRy5 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable, but gut with a chainsaw per WP:BLP until some WP:RS can be dug up for some of this stuff. Ford MF (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Faik Zaghloul

Ali Faik Zaghloul (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A good faith search for references found nothing but Wikipedia for (Zaghloul "Egyptian Radio Magazine"), fails WP:N and WP:V. I came across the article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and as best as I can tell there is no evidence that anything in the article is true or accurate. I am not sure but I believe that even the Arabic version of the article [1] is unreferenced and tagged appropriately Jeepday (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Let's not jump the gun. Seek advice from Arabic-speaking Wikipedians, as topics such as this may not have easily located English-language sources. Give it a few days, and please use discussion before resorting to tactics such as this; the article certainly doesn't seem like any type of hoax and we don't discriminate in our subject matter against Arabic topics. Badagnani (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NN, WP:RS, WP:V.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree w/ rationale provided above by Jeepday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete because it is not cited, and thus unable to verify the claims being made (WP:V). Happyme22 (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per number of ghits although I'm not sure how many of them may be wiki mirrors and such and I've only searched in english. The fact that the article has existed for 2 years without substantial improvement is worrying but, that in and of itself is not deletion criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: the Arabic language does not use the roman script, so this is not surprising. Whether for better or worse, Arabic-language radio announcers of yesteryear do not have excellent coverage on websites using latin-based scripts. Let's defer to our Egypt-based editors on this and seek their input--we do have a lot of them. Badagnani (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ghits for "علي فايق زغلول" -wikipedia = 136 results. I may be mistaken but most appear to be forums or blogs. Jeepday (talk) 12:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable (and) without sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I'm relisting this and adding it to the more general Middle East deletion sorting list in the hopes that we get some more feedback from knowledgeable folks (at this point anyone who reads Arabic could provide some insight). I was on the verge of closing this as delete because we simply don't have sources right now so the article fails WP:V, but we're operating in the dark and it won't hurt to give this another 5-7 days to see if someone can shed some light on this gentleman.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - I was contacted as someone who knew Arabic to look for legit sources on this guy. I did an arabic search on him and got over 15,000 hits. Many of them were forums, yes, but many more were legitimate news sites. I think this article needs work from an Arabic speaker, not deletion. Wrad (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Is there a policy that goes with that? I looked all through WP:V and The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed. I was not aware that we had separate verification requirements based on the nationality of or primary language of the subject of an article. But if you think there is a policy that say's unverified information can stay if there is some possibility it may eventually be found, please point me to it and I will immediately withdraw the request for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I've just verified you that it's notable enough to be an article. If it doesn't have refs on it, put a sources needed tag up. The answer then is to add sources not to delete. This article has the right to exist as verified by an arabic web search.
Why are you looking at WP:V for a deletion discussion? You should be looking at the deletion policy page, which says articles should be deleted if they "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" or if "all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". This article no longer meets either of these criteria and should be kept. Language doesn't matter. Wrad (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that I attempted to reference the article prior to posting it at AFD. While WP:V does not lead to deletion of an article directly, it does speak to the removal of all material that is challenged, I am challenging all of the content of the article. If all the content is removed, per WP:V then it qualifies for {{db-empty}}, so in essence all unreferenced articles are subject to deletion, by the two step process. I am not trying to appear disagreeable, but there are No Articles on Wikipedia that have been tagged as being unreferenced longer then this article. The oldest Category in Category:Articles lacking sources is Category:Articles lacking sources from July 2006 in which this article currently resides. Per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and as of yet no reliable verifiable reference supporting any part of the article have been provided. The reference you added in these two edits Diff shows Bad Request (Invalid Hostname) additionally there does not appear to be any relationship between "Popular Street Songs Belong to the Name of Rushdie (Arabic)" and the article content for "Ali Faik Zaghloul". other then they are both Arabic. The goal of Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles is The goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. Jeepday (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That is freaking annoying! That stupid link worked last night and now it's dead! Can you just chill a little bit and not be so confrontational. You seem very doubtful of anything I put up that is Arabic. I'm doing this out of the goodness of my heart here. I don't care one bit about this guy or this article. Wrad (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I just added a bunch more refs, but I can't translate them now as I will be late for work. You're just going to have to wait until this afternoon. And if you look carefully at the article, Rushdie (Roushdy) has a lot to do with the article. Zaghloul made him famous and that's what the article that went dead talked specifically about, so don't be so quick to condemn it. Wrad (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I know I hate it when links do that, the whole site was down when I checked. The relationship between Rushdie and Roushdy is not obvious unless you are familiar with the names (which I am not). I have nothing against you or foreign language references. I just have a thing about unreferenced encyclopedia articles. If there had been references on علي فايق زغلول I would have used them. Jeepday (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I was a bit rough there. I was pretty upset about that link. Wrad (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks very much to Wrad, who I contacted, for looking into this and finding some sources that seem to verify this guy's existence. That's probably sufficient to make this article keepable for the time being, at least in my view.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio station articles

  • None currently

[edit] Radio station templates

  • None currently

[edit] Radio Proposed deletions

[edit] Radio show/personalities articles

  • None currently

[edit] Radio station articles

  • None currently