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

James P Mahon

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

Refbombed promotion for non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Many sources but most are by him instead of about him. A little bit of local interest puff but nothing significant. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Journalism, Radio, Television, Sports, Ireland, Romania, England, Scotland, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have decided not to make a specific recommendation here. Yet. As, frankly, I wonder if I can leave aside the years of WP:COI and WP:REFBOMB concerns that I've struggled with on this title. And, perhaps, any !vote contribution from me may not be fully objective. However, I have long wondered whether WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NACADEMIC are met here. As, IMO, there is limited evidence that the subject has received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. The sources (in the article and seemingly those that are available) are almost all either written by the subject (some about himself and others just things he has written generally), or by entities associated with the subject (university bio profiles, Huffington Post profile, news employer bio, etc), or are just trivial passing mentions. The only three sources, of which the subject is a primary topic and which are could be considered somewhat independent, are the three pieces in the local Clare Champion newspaper (from 2013, 2021 & 2022). And, personally, I'd question whether these are fully independent. Or whether these types of "local boy graduates" stories materially contribute to notability. Any more than this "former co-worker wrote autobiography" piece is strictly independent. Anyway. If I was confident that years of COI/REFBOMB/FV annoyance with this title weren't influencing my recommendation, I'd probably lean "delete". But, being perfectly frank and hopefully somewhat self-aware, I'm not convinced would be an entirely objective recommendation (based entirely on NBIO merit).... Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The John and Jeff Show

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

Nothing on the page to suggest that the topic meets the inclusion criteria. Not much else found, being in a list of "top 100 talk shows" would not appear to be enough. JMWt (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, I wasn’t even able to find significant coverage about this created piece. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 11:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge: a small portion to the radio station article, seems to have been a longtime show on the air, just not enough notability for a full article here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dasey

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

That's biograme is merely sourced, it's known that he works as journalist that's all there no reasons for meeting notability guidelines The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. The Wolak (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed a single purpose editor has been adding a lot of uncited text since nomination for deletion. [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review new additions to this article since its nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "sources" added are two bios on this fellow, an article he wrote and podcast. I can only find articles he's written, nothing about him. I don't see notability due to the lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inanda FM

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of independent reliable sources covering this ApexParagon (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's enough in Google News and other searches. Sadly, this is another page creation by an enthusiastic editor who possibly in their excitement to create the article has forgotten something very important, references! I'm going to resist the temptation to get in and sort this out and improve it as it will take up too much of my time. I hope some folks can get in. It does have the making of a good article, but this like many others gets nominated for deletion because of lack of refs.
Regards Karl Twist (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One World Radio

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

Advertorialized article about a radio station, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media outlets. As always, radio stations are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but apart from one citation to a music blog that isn't a reliable source (and wouldn't be enough to get this over GNG all by itself even if we did handwave it through), this is otherwise referenced entirely to the station's own self-published content about itself, which is not support for notability at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the station from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Belgium, and Romania. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Tomorrowland Take away the PR material and you do not have anything that comes close to an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 05:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, when suggesting a Redirect or Merge, please provide a direct link to the target article you are recommending. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of state media by country

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

Since we have Category:State media - i think this list is not needed. Its difficult to maintain or verify accuracy. Category should be the source of truth. Cinaroot (talk) 23:34, 15 May 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 May 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to List of public broadcasters by country. While there is a hat note explaining both lists are not the same, the inclusion criteria distinction is fuzzy and not applied at all. For several countries, the same broadcasters are included in both lists, which would not happen, in theory, if the hat note was accurate. They are supposed to be mutually exclusive inclusion criteria, and they are not. MarioGom (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to where ? Cinaroot (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

state media list is different from public broadcasters list. it cannot be redirected or merged there Cinaroot (talk) 18:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my rationale. This article claims they are different. But they list the same media outlets. It's effectively a POV fork. MarioGom (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, if there is no consensus for redirect/merge, I'd be fine with deletion. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yah, a media shouldn't be in both. people keep adding to this. i have no idea if its true. thats why - we cannot maintain such a list. List of public broadcasters by country is written more like a article. so im fine keeping that. Cinaroot (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom can you change your vote to either keep or delete. like i noted below - Radio Rwanda, Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa etc.. are included in this list. However - in the article they are all identified as public broadcaster. This is why - im saying we cannot maintain this list. its a mix of state media and public broadcaster. Cinaroot (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. My first option is redirect/merge, and second option delete. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That happened after a mass merge by @Cinaroot (I had been keeping the lists non-redundant) but just went back in and cleaned up List of public broadcasters by country so there should not be any duplication Superb Owl (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i just moved whats in Public broadcasting to List of public broadcasters by country Cinaroot (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored and improved the original list that complements the article we are discussing here so there should be zero overlap between the two. I also added an editnotice on List of public broadcasters by country which should help to cut down and maintenance and duplication on that article and is something I would suggest for this article as well to explain the importance of the outlets having editorial independence and entries having citations that support that they have said independence. Superb Owl (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The scope of the article is also dubious. It lists a number of authoritarian countries that have no independent media but has provided only a few names for "state media". NavjotSR (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand your point exactly but am curious to better understand your thoughts Superb Owl (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the advantages of lists (as spelled out on WP:BEFORECAT) is that they allow us to organize by topics like by Country (as this list is). Because state media is very much country-driven, it seems to be the best format barring some way to render categories by country. The list article seems to be more popular (gets ~10x the number of pageviews) and has been maintained much better than the categories though I have been cleaning those up as well. Superb Owl (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still support deletion.

The concept of “state media” is too broad and often disputed. Without a clearly defined and consistently applied inclusion criterion—whether it’s government funding, editorial control, legal status, or degree of independence—the list becomes subjective and unreliable. It invites confusion, duplication, and personal opinion.

Cinaroot (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Rwanda is in state media list - but in the article it says its a public broadcaster.

Same for Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation - I PICKED THESE TWO AT RANDOM

Please just delete it. I'm not sure - if this is being watched by enough editors. People will continue to add wrong media to this list. Cinaroot (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cinaroot: Please, see WP:BLUDGEON. MarioGom (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORECAT. - Amigao (talk) 23:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not accurate. please see my above and below comments. Cinaroot (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Radio Rwanda, Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation, Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa etc.. are included in this list. However - in the article they are all identified as public broadcaster. Cinaroot (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Radio Rwanda and Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation are for sure state media and had citations supporting that assertion which you deleted (I deleted the Greenland example for lack of citations on the matter). Please see WP:WPNOTRS for explanation of why we do not use Wikipedia articles as reliable sources to determine things like whether or not a broadcaster should be called state media or not. Even if they were incorrectly added, please see WP:NOTPERFECT which talks about how fixing issues is preferable to deletion in many cases. Superb Owl (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i removed citation's because another editor was involved in Wikipedia:REFSPAM - involving 100's of articles. This manipulated the search results and AI output. I still do not like you adding lots of citation to same source in List of public broadcasters by country or depending on a single source for classification.

I do not have a major objection to keeping the list itself. but state media classification is complicated and disputed. like i said before without a clearly defined and consistently applied inclusion criterion—whether it’s government funding, editorial control, legal status, or degree of independence—the list becomes subjective and unreliable. Cinaroot (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful as a list, no reason to delete. Why does this website suddenly have so many efforts to delete perfectly fine lists, when Wikipedia is famous for these? Hyperbolick (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nom seems to be a straightforward WP:NOTDUP error. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYRG

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

Procedural AfD following WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 5#DYRG. Duckmather (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Duckmather (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom 124.104.16.92 (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP has been blocked for disruption. Geschichte (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this short page has a complicated recent history and I don't believe it is eligible for a Soft Deletion especially as an editor involved and who cast a "vote" here has been blocked. Can we get some more arguments here? This article was BLAR'd and objected to so Redirection is another option besides Keep and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably the 10th radio or TV station I have seen at AfD this month. Is there any wider effort to address this ?

Czarking0 (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know how many times I've clamored for better sources in these Philippines broadcasting pages. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation channels and stations#Defunct stations (needs creation) Station is defunct, there isn't anything else to add outside of that. Nathannah • 📮 16:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nathannah. Unless sources miraculously appear, this is the only way to go. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Halley ^{luv Filipino ❤} (Talk) 22:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the Week

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

Unsourced. WP:NOTTVGUIDE. There are news articles that mention books appearing on the show, but they are stubby program-guide type articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with BBC Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think there'd be room for this in an article about the BBC as a whole (this is not a statement on whether I think this subject is notable, just a comment on the above post). RobinCarmody (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that is should be merged with the main BBC Wiki page. Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is part of the fabric of the Wiki, with tons of pages linking it. (see links here). Snowman (talk) 07:51, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tons of pages link to it because it is included in a template on every article relating to BBC Radio 4. (See the content of the template in external sources.) I don't know whether this supports 'keep' or 'delete' but it does explain the proliferation of this link even on articles that are not directly related to this specific program. Lamona (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is on a template. Nevertheless, there are lots of wiki pages that link here with relevant content about Book of the Week. I have had a look. Many linked pages are about well known actors or narrators whose readings of the books were broadcast. Their readings are noteworthy parts of their careers.This is nationwide radio and the series has been broadcast for decades. Almost everyone in the UK would have heard of it. This page is part of the fabric of the wiki, so it should be kept. Snowman (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  That's nice to hear. But you must develop an article which confirms what you are claiming. So far it does not, and many parts of the article remain unsourced or undersourced. Οἶδα (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BBC_Radio_4#Programmes. No sources showing notability or significant coverage. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article and included independant sourses. Your comment is out of date now. The BBC is a realiable source, anyway. Do you see the significance of Book of the Week now? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The article mostly relies on WP:PRIMARY BBC sources. Per the WP:GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article you expanded has yet to demonstate this. Οἶδα (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You also appear to have used AI to "expand" this article too. Please leave that inhuman trash in the bin where it belongs. Οἶδα (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but create a category that can be used on books that are featured on the program. (I suppose that there may need to be subcategories for the years?) This would make it possible to retrieve all of the books on WP that have been featured. As a stand-alone, I do not find sources ABOUT BotW, but I do find sources about the books themselves. Also, the term "book of the week" is not exclusive to BBC 4, so the category term should include that. Lamona (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article and included in-line refs and sourses. Your comment is out of date now. The BBC is a realiable source, anyway. Do you see the significance of Book of the Week now? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creating such a category would imply being selected as a weekly "Book of the Week" by this BBC programme is a defining characteristic. That is evidently not true and would constitute overcategorization. We could create analogous categories for all kinds of selections of books, film, tv etc. We do not. Οἶδα (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that there were list articles that were deleted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012
List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2013

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2014

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2015

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2016

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2017

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2018
and the larger List of books featured on Book of the Week was redirected.

and the navbox between them is up for deletion Template:Book of the Week. Οἶδα (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. is there another way to make it possible to search on this fact, or is such a search not desired? Lamona (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION covers this topic. Οἶδα (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The article also fails WP:GNG. Leaving it as a redirect is also unsuitable. It is not even mentioned at BBC Radio 4, nor would it be appropriate to deeply cover it there. The name "Book of the Week" is also extremely generic and easily confused with the plethora of other publications and organisations that routinely name their own "Book of the Week". Οἶδα (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be moved to "Book of the Week (BBC)". It is an extremely well known series in the UK. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe the correct dab would be (radio series) or (radio programme). But that is beside the point. You can always create that redirect if you find it necessary. The real problem remains: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (WP:GNG) The article you expanded has yet to demonstate this. As I said to you at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 17, if you want an article kept on Wikipedia you must demonstrate significance, not make unsubstantiated and personal claims. Repeating "It is an extremely well known series in the UK" does not mean anything. I could make an article for my ham sandwich and say it is well known by every British household. Wikipedia does not rely on self-published sources or original research. Until I provide such evidence, the subject is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. I searched the internet and Gbooks for at least 20 minutes and could not find significant coverage myself, and you have not provided any in the article. Your expansion only added primary (BBC) coverage, insignificant coverage in The Guardian, and obvious AI summary language. Even from the way the AI is writing I can easily tell it is struggling to come up with something from the same exact limited coverage I am reading. I would love nothing more than to see this article sufficiently developed, but alas it is not. And considering you surrendered the job to an AI language, I can only assume you aren't interested in doing the work or you also cannot dredge up significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Οἶδα (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Book of the Week" could be a future dab, and "Book of the Week (BBC)" could be this article. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Common knowledge. It is in plain sight that "Book of the Week" is notable. Anyone can listen to BBC Radio 4 on the BBC Sounds between 9.45 and 10am any week day. Anyone in the world with an internet connection can do this. It has been broadcast weekdays for more than 20 years, it is almost as reliable as the Sun rising in the mornings (if you see what I mean). Anyway, the current expanded article shows that "Book of the Week" is notable and it does have reliable refs. The BBC is one of the most important sources for the Wiki. I did expand parts of article with AI assistance and I checked every source and edited the output to make it accurate. I wrote other parts manually. By itself, AI made an amazing article, but I had to reject most of it, because the sources needed a login or somehow not available to me. Using a "deep search" facility, AI found about a dozen refs. I used AI here under pressure from this deletion request. Thank you for removing some of the glossy AI language. I have made it a bid more readable too. It is worth having a look at all the "what links here"; there are many pages linking here, many books, authors, and narrators. Not just the links on the template. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have added BBC web pages to the article to support the data there. Unfortunately, those are not independent sources. (See WP:ORGIND and WP:INDEPENDENT). Therefore they do not support notability of the topic. Lamona (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have/had 2 non-bbc sources but unfortunately the Turpin one does not mention BBC or the reading of the book. I marked it as failing verification but it really should be deleted. Lamona (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to repeat yourself. It is rather unusual that an editor as accomplished and longstanding as yourself is refusing to produce evidence and instead settling for personal claims of notability and significance. And you can defend your use of AI, but it produced a rather substandard article that is really no better than the stub that preceded it. Just because you can dredge up insignificant coverage does not mean expanding the article with said coverage actually improves it and elevates it to the threshold of WP:GNG. I understood that you had at least somewhat copyedited the AI's summaries, but the "glossy" language you kept conferred context and significance that remained unsourced and honestly appears like just another conceptual hallucination/fabrication that AI language models are constantly guilty of. Your entire argument here is basically that Book of the Week is notable by virtue of it being a Radio 4 programme and by virtue of its longevity. That could be true, but it apparently has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources after all this time and all of its broadcasts. And I fail to see where your argument is supported by what is written at Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Can you at all explain yourself beyond making unsupported claims? I hope you understand I am not trying to antagonize you. I am sure Book of the Week is fine programme that plenty of listeners follow and enjoy. I am only trying to verify that it belongs as a standalone article on Wikipdia. But I am not sure how many times I can continue to ask of you what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Please rethink your editing style and bring your editing into compliance with policy. Οἶδα (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the relevant Wiki Projects. Please give enough time for more discussion. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The a former controler of BBC Radio 4 has stated in a national neswpaper that "Book of the Week" is an important part of Radio 4, then it it notable (see one of the article's sources). I think that the articled has adequate referencess to prove notability; nevertheless, I will search for more refernces when I have time. I would say that people living in the UK would certainly appreciate this article. Snowman (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Book of the Week is a vital part of Radio 4 and frequently scintillates – and I have no doubt that some of the audience will feel its absence," Damazer said on his Radio 4 blog.

The newspaper is quoting a post from his Radio 4 blog. How does a single comment by a Radio 4 controller on his blog which was then quoted in passing in a Guardian article translate to significant coverage in reliable sources, thus meaning that the subject is worthy of a standalone article on Wikipedia? I'm not sure why you repeated this again in a extension down here intead of responding to my reply to you. Οἶδα (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see arguments all over the map here, Keep, Delete and Redirect. Can we get a actual source analysis here? Also, there are multiple needless comments of hostility here that border on personal attacks. Do not insult your fellow editors, focus on the article and its sources, not discussion participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify that my comments had consistently been related to the article, its subject, the edits that have been made to it, and their relation to Wikipedia policy. Forgive me but I was expressing frustration after examining the topic and making a simple appeal for verification and receiving a succession of perfectly irrelevant replies in return.

I disagree with the characterisation that I ignored the article and its sources and instead targeted insults at discussion participants. I had already stated that the article was composed almost exclusively of primary (BBC) coverage, along with insignificant coverage in one Guardian article. That is rather unsophisticated. But if you took issue with me questioning whether a user might not be "interested in doing the work", then I apologise and of course admit I could have resorted to a more strictly conciliatory tone. If you took issue with me expressing bewilderment that a veteran editor of nearly 20 years and over 100,000 edits is brazenly shirking Wikipedia policy, then I apologise and of course admit I could have resorted to a more strictly conciliatory tone. If you took issue with me characterising AI as "inhuman trash", well then I guess I apologise for "hostility" toward an unsentient language model, though I firmly believe they undermine reliability and erode the very spirit of Wikipedia. And that was reflected in their usage here, which inserted insignificant coverage and robotic puffery language into the article, in violation of WP:NPOV.

If we are committed to staying on topic, then introducing this characterisation without fully engaging with it becomes a distraction in itself. This only compounds how much of the discussion has consisted of one editor ignoring every appeal and instead inserting their own invented claims. Οἶδα (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy. WP:NOPAGE applies. Also per Οἶδα's assessment of WP:GENERIC and the paucity of a redirect to our readers. (And @Liz:, yes I too note the WP:BLUDGEONING from Snowmanradio.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As seen again below... Οἶδα (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to "Book of the Week (BBC radio series)" to be more specific. I don't think the article is any less notable than countless others on WP, and indeed of more interest or importance depending on individual reader's tastes; however, the main stumbling block here is the shortage of independent reliable sources. Despite the BBC being regarded as a reliable source, self-referencing doesn't cut it, but that issue can be worked on given the time and opportunity which can only be achieved if the article isn't deleted. None of the article's content is controversial, offensive or harmful in any way so give it a chance. BTW Οἶδα, that's a clever, meaningful username! Red Sunset (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATADD (multiples thereof). —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for noticing, however, I should only respond to the topic at hand by affirming what was alluded to above. Your comments here advance unsound deletion arguments:

WP:OTHERSTUFF ("I don't think the article is any less notable than countless others on WP")

WP:ATADD#Personal_taste ("indeed of more interest or importance depending on individual reader's tastes")

WP:SOURCESEXIST ("self-referencing doesn't cut it, but that issue can be worked on given the time and opportunity which can only be achieved if the article isn't deleted.")

WP:HARMLESS ("None of the article's content is controversial, offensive or harmful in any way so give it a chance.") Οἶδα (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been more than one comment about the name of the article, which I can understand. I have started a new discussion about the the name of the article on the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For me, Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE is relevant here. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the article using indepentent sources. I think that the article has been transformed for the better, since the start of this deletion discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has seven reliable independant sources, which I think makes the article worthy. There is lots of relevant independant information available; for example pently is found using an internet seach for "BBC OR radio "book of the week" site:www.theguardian.com". I have put an {{under construction}} banner on the article. Amongst other things, the banner invites help to expand the article, which would be helpfull becasue I am busy doing other things. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to advance the disscusion about the wiki links that link here. I have looked at the "what links here" wiki links by using "What links here" search results - note the inverted commas for a more focused search on "Book of the Week". There are over 500 pages that link to Book of the Week, probably about 550 pages. Looking at a selection of them, the vast majority are relevant to the BBC's Book of the Week, but a few refer to other "book of the week" books. The huge number of pages with relevant links to BBC's Book of the Week (not relating to the template) comfirms to me that the BBC's Book of the Week article is part of the fabric of the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowmanradio: You have made nealy 40% of the edits to the page and replied to almost everyone who disagrees with you. If you persist in WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I will be forced to request administrative intervention. Thanks, —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To Administrator User: Liz. Please advice me on the comment above made by user Fortuna imperatrix mundi at 11.16 earlier today. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a needless comment of hostility here that border[s] on personal attacks, if that's what you mean. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Thank you for revealing some new (to me) WP guidelines, but I agree with snowmanradio that WP:COMMONSENSE could be applied here. The show has a large, regular listener base and features many notable books and narrators, so it seems reasonable to me that the show should be regarded as being notable in its own right. Also, there have been a number of improvements made since my last post by snowmanradio who is evidently trying hard to address the issues raised here, so my recommendation to keep still stands. Red Sunset (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for linking to an essay. What is needed in this article is significant coverage in reliable sources. If the show is as well known as you say, it should not be difficult to find such coverage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Snowmanradio and yourself repeatedly making new bullet comments in the discussion? It gives the appearance as if you are trying to WP:BLUDGEON the process. You also did not respond to both of the replies that were made to you above. First Snowmanradio cited Wikipedia:Common knowledge then WP:COMMONSENSE. I fail to see where the relevance of their citation. They are not the same thing and do not support any of the claims made thus far. Can you or Snowmanradio at all explain yourselves beyond making unsupported claims? Saying "The show has a large, regular listener base and features many notable books and narrators, so it seems reasonable to me that the show should be regarded as being notable in its own right." is not a valid rationale. Do you understand how many podcasts there are out there with hundreds of thousands listeners and a long list of notable guests? Most do not have Wiki articles because they have not established independent notability as illustrated by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forgive my frustation, but what are we doing here? Again, I am only trying to verify that Book of the Week belongs as a stand-alone article on Wikipdia. I am merely asking of two editors what is a policy expectation of all Wikipedia editors. This is not negotiable. Οἶδα (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Hiestand (actor)

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

Prolific actor, but no major roles as far as I can see, so he fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. He was in some major films, such as The Pride of the Yankees and The Day the Earth Stood Still, but uncredited, as he was in most of his filmography. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Theatre, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is mentioned in a lot of Wikipedia articles]. Maybe there are some refs there that mention him? He seems to have been the announcer for a lot of radio shows in addition to his film/TV roles. I think he needs more investigation before deleting. See this, this, and this. Perhaps someone can search Newspapers.com? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I just inserted the link to the : "AFI|Catalog". catalog.afi.com. Retrieved 16 May 2025. in the film section. This verifies 50 titles in Filmography that he actually made. That was easy to find, and John Hiestand appears to have been a prolific actor. Perhaps what throws people off is that in these older films, for all the actors, and are easy to overlook. In the case of Hiestand, his roles seemed to be as a radio announcer or commentator. Announcers/commentators were propelling the story lines, so they are vital in those old films. Someone else needs to find television or radio sourcing. Also, please click on Find Sources links at the bottom of the above deletion notice. Those will take you to more sourcing. There is no reason to delete this article. It just needs someone to search a little and add the sourcing. — Maile (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal. Find sources shows he got passing mentions only, almost always for being a cast member; the most significant snippet seems to be in the book Animated Personalities, which says he pretended to be Walt Disney when Disney couldn't be there. "credits did not necessarily appear on screen" = uncredited, which means an actor didn't have a significant role. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have spent the better part of the day researching on this individual. He is notable and his career spanned decades through screen, television and radio. And, yes, he did perform with the Kay Kyser band. I have done some of the sourcing, but it's now up to others. Anyone who wants to know more, is welcome to pick up the research and post it here. — Maile (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am currently looking for sources. I have added one profile from the Los Angeles Daily News, and a quote from the Los Angeles Times. The latter is from the section where readers' queries about film, TV and radio personalities are answered - it's short, but does indicate a level of notability at the time. I also note that some newspaper reviews of films that are listed in this article, in which he is said to be uncredited, list him among the cast. The website oldtimeradiodownloads (apparently blacklisted) has an image of a printed profile titled 'Say Hello To ...' - unfortunately, it doesn't seem to give details about the publication it appeared in. I'll come back to !vote, but it does look like he was well known as a narrator and in the role of radio announcer (on actual radio, and in films), and is probably notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I don't see grounds for this to be a Speedy Keep. He certainly has a great many credits but that doesn't automatically translate to notable. Can we get a source review here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources and info. I believe that he meets WP:BASIC, with "multiple independent sources being combined to demonstrate notability", or possibly WP:ENTERTAINER. There is coverage about him in newspapers of the time, and Google Books snippet views suggest that there was also coverage in magazines and periodicals. Being an announcer or the person reading commercials from sponsors may not seem a significant role, but the way it was written about at the time suggests that it was then. There are more radio shows that could be added, but they don't all (yet) have WP articles, so I won't clutter this article with them now. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Almost all of the sources are passing mentions, cast listings, announcements or other fluff, with two exceptions: one substantial bio (the Los Angeles Daily News article) and one iffy one, a bio attached to an archive entry for his papers, held by the American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming. Is that enough? It seems rather weak to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I said that he meets WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". There was other coverage at the time too - the website oldtimeradiodownloads has an image of an article from an unnamed publication about him, which could be used if we knew the publication title and date, etc. (I can't link to that website as it's apparently blacklisted, but the article, "Say Hello To - John "Bud" Hiestand", certainly looks genuine.) The article about his map collection may be considered "fluff", but why did the paper publish it if he was not notable? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers publish lots of articles all the time about people who are not notable, e.g. Ferrari driver caught going 124 km/h in a residential Langley neighbourhood. They'd be pressed for material if they didn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I claim that he meets WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG, so I don't think your source assessment proves anything, except that most sources are independent and reliable. I will leave it to other editors to give their views. However, I will ping @Ssilvers, who asked if someone could search Newspapers.com. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the additional sourcing and information, this article meets WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. He had a very notable career in radio, film and TV and, given his significant body of work in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, is a pioneer of broadcast entertainment of encyclopedic importance. Clarityfiend, please stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Clarityfiend
Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Los Angeles Evening Post-Record https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-evening-post-record-all-wave/173161846/	Passing mention: "Glenn became a husband last week to Betty Hiestand, sister of Announcer Bud Hiestand, alias Bud Hallam"	✘ No
Archive notes, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming https://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:80444/xv869238	130 word "Historical Note"/bio	? Unknown
Los Angeles Daily News		✔ Yes
Guide to Entertainment Industry Records, American Heritage Center, University of Wyoming https://www.uwyo.edu/ahc/_files/collection_guides/ent-ind-guide-2009-ed_jan_2017.pdf	A bit more detailed version of the Archive notes above.	? Unknown
The Peninsula Times Tribune https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-peninsula-times-tribune-stanford-gra/172966199/	A "local boy makes good" short article.	✘ No
The Los Angeles Times https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-personal-palaver/172897101/	Two sentences.	✘ No
Los Angeles Daily News https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news-lornettes/172967730/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Los Angeles Daily News https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news-here-and-there-on-the-air-wit/172960767/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Los Angeles Evening Citizen News https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-evening-citizen-news-the-hou/173092715/	Passing mention.	✘ No
On the Air: The Encyclopedia of Old-Time Radio https://books.google.ca/books?id=HqhoAgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y	Couldn't view book page, but probably (based on the source's sole use) just a cast listing.	? Unknown
Tuning In The Great Gildersleeve: The Episodes and Cast of Radio's First Spinoff Show, 1941-1957 https://books.google.ca/books?redir_esc=y&id=u5a6Cvz6HmgC&q=Hiesland#v=onepage&q=Hiesland&f=false	Couldn't view book page, but based on the book title and the pages I can see, most likely a cast listing.	? Unknown
The Santa Anna Register https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-register-lack-of-money-gets-dexter-i/172896106/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/john_hiestand	List of credits mostly.	✘ No
Santa Barbara Morning Press https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-morning-press-marriage-of-wood-hie/172968577/	Wedding announcement.	✘ No
Los Angeles Daily News https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-news-many-changes-made-in-radio-to/173161765/	Passing mention.	✘ No
Los Angeles Evening Citizen News https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-evening-citizen-news-radio-p/172969458/	Adoption announcement.	✘ No
The Los Angeles Times https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/381298108/	Can't view without a newspapers.com subscription, but appears to be a routine divorce announcement.	? Unknown
The Los Angeles Times https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-obituary-for-john/72295558/	An obituary that appears to have been written by a family member or friend, based on the wording, e.g. "His brilliant and gifted personality will be remembered with love ..."	✘ No
Van Nuys News and Valley Green Sheet (now The Los Angeles Daily News, but in 1940 a free newspaper)	One paragraph in a free newspaper about his map collection.	✘ No
Harrisburg Pennsylvania Evening News https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-evening-news-musical-pleases-colonia/172896869/	Cast listing.	✘ No
Turner Classic Movies entry for Good Morning, Miss Dove https://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/76711/good-morning-miss-dove#credits	Cast listing.	✘ No
Syracuse Herald-Journal https://www.newspapers.com/article/syracuse-herald-journal-the-steagle-sm/172897481/	Cast listing.	✘ 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}}.

Miscellaneous

Redirects

Radio proposed deletions

BluRadio (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)

Radio station templates