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

Avrum Rosensweig

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

This biography is almost entirely self-sourced (or using a congregational bulletin as a source), citing blog entries or pages from his or his organization's websites or summarising the subject's opinions as published in op-ed pieces written by him. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having surfed through the sources here, I find the nom is bang on the money. Sourcing is indeed scanty and all roads lead back to Avrum Rosensweig. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no coverage to be found of this person in .ca websites, other than social media and primary sources. This appears to be PROMO, a rather long-winded, wordy article that doesn't have much sourcing that isn't connected to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Thomson

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

Radio presenter article. Subject has done typical radio presenter things - presented shows on various stations, but not enough to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage found on a search to satisfy WP:GNG. Article has been in this poor state since 2007(!). Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's AfDs like this which makes it frustrating that Wikipedia won't accept Aircheckdownloads.com as a source. If it did then many articles like this would have more independent references and would not have been deleted. Rillington (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Storrie

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG. None of the article's current sources contribute to notability, all being interviews, promotional pieces about the subject's work, or passing mentions. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage in a BEFORE search. Perhaps a small amount of the content could be merged into her mother's page (Janey Godley) but most of it is off-topic there. CodeTalker (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source assessment table of the article's current sources.

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CodeTalker
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15442369.ashley-storrie-daughter-comedy-legend---taking-game	Source is an interview with the subject		✘ No
https://list.co.uk/news/10027/interview-ashley-storrie-i-have-been-known-to-go-a-bit-tonto	Source is an interview with the subject	~	✘ No
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/15443896.ashley-storrie-on-being-the-daughter-of-a-comedy-legend-and-taking-her-on-at-her-own-game/	Source is an interview with the subject		✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/1999/aug/16/artsfeatures1	~ Source is mostly quotes from the subject, with a few sentences of analysis	~	~ Partial
https://cmmanagement.co.uk/talent/ashley-storrie/	Source appears to be a blurb from the subject's management company		✘ No
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/meet-tanya-potter-harrys-long-12110480		Source is a short review of a video produced by the subject	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00037wr	~	Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17765419.scotlands-best-talent-celebrates-latest-herald-culture-awards/		Source is an article about an award won by the subject as well as by others; contains a mere mention of the subject's name	✘ No
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2020/09/23/46953/2020_scottish_comedy_award_winners_revealed		Source is an article about an award won by the subject as well as by others; contains a mere mention of the subject's name	✘ No
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/comedian-ashley-storrie/	~ Source is largely based on an interview, contains a small amount of analysis	~	~ Partial
https://sundaypost.com/fp/ashley-storrie-dinosaur/	~ Source is largely based on an interview, contains a small amount of analysis	~	~ Partial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gx7g	~	Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://dabsterproductions.com/projects/ashley-storrie/	~	Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2024/10/02/56719/four_scottish_bafta_nods_for_ashley_storrie%E2%80%99s_dinosaur		Source is about an award won by a show that the subject appears in	✘ No
https://thinkingautismguide.com/2024/04/talking-with-dinosaur-star-and-co-creator-ashley-storrie.html	Source is an interview with the subject		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

CodeTalker (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is notable, and has been in the public eye with cocomitant media attention for decades. Youngest Edinburgh Fringe performer with her own show, BBC presenter, co-creator and star of a BBC television show. The article should be retained.

@CodeTalker has admitted on the article talk page to not knowing who the subject is -- all the other editors of the page at least know that -- and the amount of effort he (it just has to be a he) is expending here is concerning. Lloyd Wood (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker I’m not sure you fully understand how to analyse and create a source assessment table. All the columns, except for the one on reliability, seem to focus on fault analysis (most). Could you clarify the criteria you’re using for these attributions? I highly recommend familiarizing yourself with the concepts of "significant coverage," "reliability," and "independence," as well as how these factors contribute to meeting WP:GNG. Understanding these elements is essential for proper source evaluation. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was originally a redirect to Godley's page. Part of why I never actually finished drafting the article was because pretty much everything I was finding was interviews and the likes. Also @Lloyd Wood:, please bear in mind WP:CANVASS. Posting heavily-worded comments on other Wikipedias as ye did here tends to be frowned upon CiphriusKane (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on source analysis. Her being the youngest Edinburgh fringe performer (what an obscure claim to notability), alongside hosting a BBC tv show does not create notability, sourcing does. Also @Llyod Wood I advise you to keep discussion focused on the subject and her notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the table indicates three sources which the nom has grudgingly labelled 'partial' when it appears to be 'yes', has dismissed three as non-independent due to containing content of an interview but are actually standard articles focused purely on the subject over which she presumably had no editorial control, and has misrepresented one on 'an award won by a show that the subject appears in', it was actually a nomination but in fact three nominations as writer, actor and for the show itself. Based on the criteria (interviews don't count, their shows and even awards for their shows don't count as only a passing mention / not notable in itself), it's difficult to imagine how any comedian bio meets the threshold of inclusion. WP:ENTERTAINER states "Such a person may be considered notable if; The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" - the subject appears to meet all three of the above requirements to an extent, although no single one emphatically.Crowsus (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Edinburgh Fringe example was just to show that the subject has been in the public eye for decades. The subject has hosted multiple BBC radio shows and has starred in multiple BBC television and radio shows, so @Traumnovelle's description was misleading. Speaking of accuracy, @Traumnovelle do note your typo of my name. Lloyd Wood (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the assessment by @Crowsus. Storrie would not have had editorial control over interviews with her, the sources of those interview articles are independent. It's also notable that these major media outlets (national newspapers, etc.) thought that that the subject was notable enough to be worth interviewing in the first place. Those sources are good. Lloyd Wood (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interview published by the interviewer is still an interview and not independent of the interviewee. CodeTalker (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reject interviews, even though the interview format is standard for actors, and for standup comics, where words matter, and the comic's opinions and experiences are entirely relevant to the matter at hand. Interviewed repeatedly by national media? That's notable, and the content will have been factchecked before publication.

Yet you also reject articles about awards won by work done by the subject, simply because the subject... actually appeared in the award-winning work that they did?

Being nominated for and winning awards in her chosen field -- for writing and performing -- is notable. Laudable, too. Just out of curiosity, how many awards have you won?

Your chosen criteria and your interpretation of them are... strange. If I look at the table you made up, I see a lot of green ticks, and a whole lot of your nitpicking. Lloyd Wood (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interview can be used as a source, but generally isn’t used to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (as WP:ATD) ~~Delete~~ for now. While I would expect that she will someday become WP:NOTABLE that is not quite today, she is WP:BAREBLP. She has been a prolific entertainer for many years, but length of years is not sufficient enough. As per WP:NACTOR it requires significant roles in multiple noteworthy shows, and from what I can tell, Dinosaur (TV series) is the only one that fits that criteria. No other shows fit WP:N. While she has been nominated for an award, she didn't win WP:RUNNERUP. While her public life about being on the autism spectrum is admirable, it is hardly a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution" WP:NACTOR. Arguably what brought her the most notability is her mother, Janey Godley, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Not inherited also applies to the BBC radios shows; the channel is noteworthy, but the program itself is not. I'm not seeing any coverage that counts as WP:SECOND where "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Rather the bulk is simply coverage of interviews or self-promotion (ie channel listings, agent website, etc). About the only actual secondary article talks briefly about her award nomination, but that really just becomes a reliable source reference that she received an award nomination. Also looking at WP:DIRECTOR, as an alternative criterion to NACTOR, this article seems to also fail all of those examples as well. All that being said, I would not be surprised if one day she does truly become a notable figure, and she will quite possibly check all or more of these boxes, but right now she does not yet pass the criteria for inclusion. TiggerJay (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge/Redirect from delete, but otherwise my rationale for why it shouldn't YET be an article still remains. TiggerJay (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comparison research of the other actors involved in Dinosaur (TV series) shows how every one that has an article clearly exceeds notability. Aside from that one TV shows, the only other article which Storrie actual professional work that meets notability guidelines appears to be when she was a child, at 4 years old in a commercial. Everything else is references to very broad categories -- such as Edinburgh Festival Fringe which in 2024 had over 3,317 different shows -- being a part of such a massive festival isn't noteworthy. The same goes with simply being a comedian, appearing on a radio show, etc. Now perhaps there is a case that one or more of those might be notable, but I couldn't find anything that makes a radio talk/music show that is on a 22:00 until 0100 anything of significant notability. Compare that with David Carlyle with 5 notable films, 2 BAFTA noms, winner of several awards. Or Lorn Macdonald with 2 movies and several tv shows. Or Greg Hemphill undisputedly notable, and a article and IMDB profile to show for it. Ben Green (comedian) who is another comedian, has over a 22 in his filmography. Or Sally Howitt who has been in a reoccurring role since 2003 on the award winning River City, plus 5 other shows. Or Sanjeev Kohli another actor/comedian with a long history. Also most of these have far less references, but far more checkboxes when it comes to notability criteria for actors/entertainers/etc. By comparison this just seems too soon for Storrie. TiggerJay (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Television, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Like Crowsus, I find the characterisation column in the table rather suspect, ditto some of the rationales behind the "independent" column. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the event that it's determined she fails GNG, would a redirect to Janey Godley (as it was originally) or Dinosaur (TV series) be a suitable WP:ATD? It stood as a redirect for 3 years before this bourach CiphriusKane (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely I would support a redirect to either, and even merging some of the content. Again, I would say she will probably WP:CRYSTAL be WP:GNG in the near future, but not yet, and certainly not by the references in the article thus far. TiggerJay (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"not by the references in the article thus far": then you need to learn what AfD is about. We should not be voting on the 'references in the article thus far', but in what information is in reliable sources in the public domain, and that means people should look more widely before voting. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you that the analysis by CodeTalker of the on page references is questionable and I would disagree with some of the summary judgements be passed. However, if you think my !vote was based simply on "references in the article" then you didn't read what I wrote at all, but simply cherry picked something to disagree with. Rather I presented 8 various different links to policies, guidelines and essays from which I based my !vote, the majority of which has nothing to do with "references in the article" (but I think the references do precious little to help establish GNG), but certainly review them along with independent research I performed. If you'd like to suggest reliable sources to disagree with requirements for "multiple noteworthy shows" or secondary sources that "contain analysis, interpretation or synthesis" or how she meets any of the other criteria of things like DIRECTOR or NACTOR, etc. I would be happy to read a reliable, secondary source that talks about the attributes required in ENTERTAINER. I would be happy to hear what she as actually "contributed to a field of entertainment" that really isn't just WP:SNOWFLAKE. TiggerJay (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – obscure comedian, one of 10,000s on the comedy circuit in the UK but not significant in her own right. Vast majority of coverage found via search engines (most of which have been barrel scraped to build the article) have been scrutinised well above. Most are about her mother, who actually was a renowned comedian. One of the sources in the "partial" category above is largely about her being a comedian with autism, which whilst interesting, does not give her ground for an article of her own. Another is a tiny comment piece in The Guardian. The only one I'd give any weight to is the Sunday Post interview. I'll also add that in the past it looks like there's been resistance to giving her an article of its own, perhaps for the reasons already outlined here. Her name, until recently, would redirect to her mum's article, Janey Godley. Godley's illness and death does not change Storrie's notability. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I find the source assessment table quite flawed in its analysis, as there are numerous incorrect attributions of appropriate references. There is substantial coverage in several sources that highlight key milestones in the subject's career, including interviews, awards, and recognition for her shows such as Dinosaur. Sources like The List and Chortle provide detailed coverage, while BBC and Sunday Post showcase her visibility in the industry. Her recognition in the Scottish BAFTA, work on Dinosaur, and coverage in BBC programs significantly support her notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really, this is detailed coverage? 'Best Radio Comic: Ashley Storrie' and 'Nominees: Ashley Storrie (BBC Radio Scotland)' Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You only found one source from The List? Also, what you mentioned from that reference can indeed be used to verify the achievement aspect. When combined with other source from The List, it provides coverage of her role and contributes to the significance of the subject in said programme. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said the assessment was flawed and said the sources provided detail coverage, I decided to take a look. The source assessment is quite correct to me.

>When combined with other source from The List, it provides coverage of her role and contributes to the significance of the subject in said programme.

It doesn't provide coverage of her role or any significance, it is a one line mention of an award. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" means that the topic is clearly and thoroughly addressed, though it doesn't require an in-depth or exhaustive explanation throughout the entire reference (solely). Rather, it should provide enough detail that the topic is well understood without needing additional research. If this level of coverage comes from an independent and reliable source, it meets WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, it's not necessary for the topic to be the main focus of the reference itself, as long as the information is substantial and relevant, it qualifies. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 19:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV is more than a trivial mention, as per the page. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro)

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

Recently recreated page after earlier prod, evidently with the same tags. The station does exist (the NTC pulled a Mexico and double-dipped on DXKS) and has been around a while but needs citation help urgently to meet the GNG, a problem common to Philippines radio station articles. See also title DXKS-FM (CDO). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'll try another relisting. Maybe User:Vineyard93 wants to take part in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Redirects

Radio proposed deletions

KDDM (via WP:PROD on 3 November 2024)
KGGM (via WP:PROD on 1 November 2024)

Radio station templates