Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Radio

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Radio. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Radio|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

watch

Radio AFDs

Richard Ferrer

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

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

Non-notable person. Doesn't meet WP:GNG because none of the sources discuss him as a person, but simply mention his job title and/or are articles writrten by him. The man himself has not received significant coverage. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Doesn't meat WP:ANYBIO. Amisom (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete could not find any significant discussion about the subject in all of the references. Those passing mentions are not enough to pass for WP:ANYBIO. Mekomo (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Fiona Foster

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

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

No sign of notability, search returns nothing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: Have added two references but the article still needs additional references.

Nyomi Banxxx

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Nyomi Banxxx
• Articles for deletion/Nyomi Banxxx (2nd nomination)

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

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NENTERTAINER. It's super promotional but that could be fixed if the subject was notable, which doesn't seem to be the case. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Sexuality and gender, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Citations are fake, article is low quality, possibly generated by a llm and the creator has been banned see here for more info. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty nine (talk) 11:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per previous deletion discussion. Little has changed or improved. JFHJr (㊟) 01:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete for still failing WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Take out the aforementioned AI-generated fake citations, and there are no new facts nor RS coverage since the previous AfD deletion. An independent WP:BEFORE search yielded no significant independent RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete looks like paid WP:PROMO, especially with heavily worded language like "breakthrough" and the fake or junk sources. Speedy Delete even is warranted. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Radio in the Flemish Community

Radio in the Flemish Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Netherlands. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

This type of article is very common. To link a few: Radio in France, Radio in Germany, Radio in Austria and Radio in the Republic of Ireland. Concerning the notability of the Flemish Community: since Belgium is roughly split into two language regions, each region has its own set of radio stations. AllOriginalBubs (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

AllOriginalBubs, the examples are from primary level national units. Do you claim that this level should be skipped in Belgium? gidonb (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mass media in Belgium#Radio as an ATD for an unjustified spinoff. Not sure that any of the information is missing there yet access and history would be preserved. gidonb (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep A quick search of Google Books shows the following English-language sources: Who Owns the World's Media? Media Concentration and Ownership Around the World (Oxford University Press) [1], pages 42-43; Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes (Wiley) [2], pages 22-23; The Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook (SAGE Publications) [3], pages 21-23. I'm sure there's more, in English and in other languages. If there were an article on Radio in Belgium, equivalent to Television in Belgium, it might be appropriate to merge this article there - but I don't think that merging or redirecting to Mass media in Belgium, which covers radio, tv, press, would be appropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Negative checking

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

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

After a cursory search through the sources listed in part D of WP:BEFORE, I failed to find any other notable sources (much less three) that specifically speaks of negative checking as opposed to someone's checking account having a negative balance. A search for neg check is admittedly a bit more promising, but it mainly turns out online services as opposed to notable sources.

Given that we can't really merge this article into our article on the fictitious persons disclaimer (which itself doesn't really discuss negative checking), I propose deleting this article. Silcox (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• no opinion on how notable, but I looked for the Lunney and Oliphant book mentioned on the page, and it indeed has a para on negative checking just as described, on page 728. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I'll admit that I'm unable to read the book due to technical reasons, although I was already aware that the book was mentioned in the article even while writing this AfD. I cannot find any other sources on negative checking, so I think we're stuck in 1R territory even if the book proved to be a non-passing reference for the subject. Silcox (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    • That's a shame, because if you had, you would have seen that the source cites a second source itself: Barendt et al. 1997a, pp. 114–115 and Barendt et al. 1997b, pp. 195. That said, I think that this is the BBC's idiosyncratic name for this. I found exactly one other mention, and it was in a directory of BBC departments in a 1993 handbook on television production (ISBN 9780240513447). (Yes, BBC. The original source talks about the BBC. See page 132.) Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
      • Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997a). "Broadcasting". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 100–125. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0005. ISBN 9780198262275.
      • Barendt, Eric; Lustgarten, Laurence; Norrie, Kenneth; Stephenson, Hugh (1997b). "Conclusions". Libel and the Media: The Chilling Effect. Clarendon Press. pp. 182–198. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198262275.003.0009. ISBN 9780198262275.

• The section heading used on Barendt et al. 1997a, p. 114 is "The Problem of Unintentional Defamation", by the way. You will get a lot further with unintentional defamation as the subject name. Of course we've had a missing subject titled by one particular nonce noun phrase instead of the actual name since 2008. This is Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, Television, and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a UK term, not specifically a BBC one - and indeed the example given in the article is an ITV programme, although it is used at the BBC. Smethurst's How to Write for Television (both 2000 and 2016 editions) has half a page of discussion of neg checking under Libel. Gallagher's Breaking into UK Film and TV Drama (2016) mentions it under Clearances. Orlebar's The Practical Media Dictionary (2003) has an entry for Negative Checks. Note that all of these have a slightly different definition from the current article - it's not just about individuals' names, but also about products and companies. I didn't find any examples of it being used outside the UK; from the US, Patz's Production Management 101 (2002) uses it to mean checking film negatives. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  • With 3 slangy sources where "neg check" is string matched to something partway down and buried in the middle of what is actually a discussion of defamation (the "libel" sources saying "defamatory matter" outright), specifically unintentional defamation, how one risks it and how one can attempt to avoid it, you make my case for me.

    If you go instead to the higher quality law sources like Douglas Maule's Media Law Essentials (EUP, 2017) or Robertson and Lane's Media Law: The Rights of Journalists and Broadcasters (Longman, 1984) you'll find this and more under unintentional defamation. There's tonnes of this if one actually gets the subject name right and stops following the Wikipedia practice of using slang titles and string matching.

    I'll mention at this point that the Lunney and Oliphant book is on the law of tort and page 728 is part of chapter 12, on defamation, pages 727 to 729 dealing with intent and with E. Hulton & Co. v Jones, 20 (AC 1910). as the aforementioned do as well (and which has had impact in Indian and Australian jurispridence). Even the 1 original source cited is telling us all what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Move to unintentional defamation and refactor this content into a section on means of preventing this, basically per Uncle G. BD2412 T 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. This seems related to the concept of "this is a work of fiction, any similarities to real life, people, events are unintentional" that is probably notable, but I am not sure what is the related term, and whether we have any article on this. Merging this to some defamation related topic makes sense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Piotrus: That would be the above-mentioned Fictitious persons disclaimer (which has some structural problems of its own, but is notable and fixable). BD2412 T 04:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

    Thanks. I think it is the best place for merger then. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

    @Piotrus: I think perhaps we merge both to a new article titled along the lines of Defamation in fictional portrayals. BD2412 T 17:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to defamation per WP:NOPAGE. I'm not convinced this meets the WP:GNG. To the extent that people can find sources, it won't make much sense to a reader without explaining defamation. I am open to other targets. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Merge per Shooterwalker. Not enough for a stand alone article (here since 2008), but worth keeping in a page like defamation. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views are split between keeping outright, retargeting somewhere else, or merging the content. More discussion needed to determine which is the preferred option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Darryl Cooper (podcaster)

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

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

This article was deleted after a discussion in September and there are no new sources. Old version. Previous discussion. New version includes false promotional language like "Cooper is a writer for The American Conservative and has contributed to Tablet Magazine" (1 article at AC, 0 at Tablet), unsourced sections, and no mention of past statements like "FDR chose the wrong side in WW2" and Hitler not being in hell. This is still a WP:BLP1E, the only difference is that the new version pretends otherwise and uses promotional framing for his views. Tagging from previous discussion: Isaidnoway Xegma Wcquidditch Chaimanmeow Liz ArmenianSniper Googleguy007 AusLondonder Gusbenz Cosmokiwi LizardJr8 Lostsandwich The_Four_Deuces Osomite Wyattroberts A._Randomdude0000 FeldBum Seefooddiet John_Z Kriddl Donald_Albury Andol HonestManBad Kimdime Hemiauchenia Sandstein. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I have this article watchlisted because I do generally think it's wise to keep an eye on the pages of holocaust deniers so that we can avoid Wikipedia hosting, you know, holocaust denial, but this guy's definitely a good example of WP:BLP1E. While I do think it's good for Wikipedia to cover notable pseudohistorians, including notable holocaust deniers, I don't think we need to have a page for every holocaust denier with a Podcastle subscription. Should evidence be presented this man is a more significant holocaust denier then I guess I'll go back to keeping him on my watchlist but otherwise I think deletion is the best course of action. Simonm223 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Also tagging @Hemiauchenia @Tsarstvovanie @Ekozie @Sweetstache @Kungigult from old page. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 While Cooper gained noterietay from the Carlson interview, the number of sources since the last article was deleted in September have increased. Aside from receiving 10s of millions of views on popular shows & podcats like Carslon and Rogan, Cooper hosts 2 popular podcasts of his own and has a substack with over 160k subscribers. I think that this page is clearly unfinished and some of the sourcing should be fixed. It also entirely focuses on his recent comments with Carlson and Rogan. This is a better argument to expand the page than to delete it. Cooper's popularity is clearly growing, he does now fit the criteria for a notable person. I think it is important for wikipedia to cover this person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 13:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Showing up as a guest in the walled garden of right-wing podcasts isn't an automatic indication of notability nor is having a blog. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct, but his popularity is. Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. Many of Cooper's associated personalities are equally as notable and have wiki pages. Comic Dave Smith for example. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Your comparison to Dave Smith (comedian) is actually a good one for demonstrating why Cooper is not notable. Smith has many reliable sources talking about a variety of actual event appearances such as festivals and such. His advocacy for Trump made it into Reason for goodness sake. The SPLC has a profile on Smith and has documented his conflict with the holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Dave Smith is clearly notable by Wikipedia's standards because reliable sources treat him as such. Showing up on Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan while being a far-right podcaster is not intrinsically notable. Having a blog is not intrinsically notable. In fact the contrast between Cooper and Smith reinforces why we should not have a page about Cooper. Simonm223 (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

So then your argument is that being different and notable is not different and notable enough to be delineated on a website that literally is about informing people how things are different and notable. Your argument is just talking in circles. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just a point of order, the previous version was not deleted – The result was redirect‎ to Tucker Carlson#Darryl Cooper World War II controversy. I'll look at the newly created version and sources a little later and get back. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  We will wait with baited breath and stop the world to wait for your opinion. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Weak Delete/Merge My opinion hasn't really changed here, eventhough the article has grown. Nearly all of the citations fall into two groups: first-party/non-notable, like the subject's substack or podcast homepage, or specifically about a single opinion/appearance--and all from September 2024. There are now two citations about a second podcast appearance, this time on Joe Rogan, but it's still basically the same problem; the subject is only notable when he makes a fuss or controversial statement on someone else's program. Basically, when you get down to it, this is person is known for two slightly viral moments. I know that BLP2E isn't a "real" policy around here, but this feels more like an extension of BLP1E. I'm assuming the subject will continue to make enough noise to eventually meet notabilty guidelines; I just don't think here's there yet based on the current article. --FeldBum (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neill Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[[[Neil Ferguson]] more an “anti-historian”[4] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep: The old article didn’t mention “that tweet” about 1/6, if I remember correctly. And that tweet was worthy for the Washington Post for an opinion article. The old article was centered around his appearance at Tucker Carlson. Cooper was worthy for Neil Ferguson to write, why he does “anti-history”[5] and he came back on Rogan. Cooper has two popular podcasts. All in all: he is now much more as “just another holocaust denier and podcaster”.—Kriddl (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: Times of Israel is a good source, [6], this is an opinion piece [7], [8], [9]. The person certainly is opinionated, but we shold have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  These are all about the same one event. Please see WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep: The current version of the article is much more detailed and has a number of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  All of which seem to be about his Tucker Carlson interview. Except for one source that mentioned a pro-Hitler tweet of his. Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  That's just your opinion. There's also a number of other quotes and information now in the article, his Joe Rogan appearance, the many, many articles criticizing his point of view. Eric Carpenter (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  certainly a noteworthy topic..keep 173.91.127.46 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: Since I was pinged as a "participant" in the last nomination, I wanted to clarify that my only contribution to that was deletion sorting. Other than this comment, that is also the case for this nomination; I had no opinion on the old article and also offer no opinion for this version. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Cooper has hundreds of thousands of listeners across various platforms. The previous article only focused on the Tucker Interview, which is why it was considered WP:BLP1E. Cooper’s work has been widely discussed in major outlets including The Times (UK), Vox, Axios, Yad Vashem, and The Free Press, which reflects the notability standards set by Wikipedia for public figures. Additionally, many of the personalities he associates with such as comic Dave Smith have wikipedia pages despite equal noterietay at best. These factors—his independent contributions to historical analysis, his partnerships with notable figures, and his coverage by reliable secondary sources—clearly demonstrate that Cooper meets the criteria a notable person. Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore there are already Darryl Cooper articles in German and French [10] Willstrauss99 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete here's very little reliable sourcing for Cooper except that he is a podcaster who made several controversial appearances on right-wing talk shows promoting holocaust denial. These controversies are best covered in articles about the hosts.

TFD (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

So wealthy well-connected podcasters get the social credit, but the minions get a little blurb that will be deleted by the Wikipedia Hatekeepers when they want to feel powerful, because they are meaningless humans otherwise. 216.49.143.3 (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep: A certain level of prudence is required to productively apply notability guidelines. Cooper is a writer and podcaster with a large audience who has been involved in several controversies. This is enough for him to be notable, and the point of notability guidelines is fundamentally to filter out what's not notable. Not to provide material for (admittedly) politically-motivated quibbling over alleged edge cases as if the norms themselves were the point. Note also the almost inevitable meta-level political bias that sneaks in when editors are free to apply different levels of scrutiny to different topics based on their own biases. A serious effort to remain unbiased would involve opening discussions on politics-related articles with an encouragement for users to check their biases at the door - instead we have editors more or less stating that they are here to enforce their political preferences. Anyway, it's three events now and it was two events last time when WP:BLP1E was applied. HonestManBad (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

The three "events" are two podcast appearances and a bad tweet. We do retain articles on notable nazi podcasters like Christopher Cantwell this guy just isn't as significant as him. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not bad in any way that's relevant to this discussion. It's not a single tweet but a thread of 35 tweets - an article of sorts, you could say - not that it matters. The reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Nothing that happens on Twitter matters at all no many how many tweets were in a thread. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Your opinion on Twitter is not relevant to this discussion. HonestManBad (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

My point is that a tweet, even a thread, does not constitute a distinct event for BLP1E purposes. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course not. Again, the reactions from significant figures and publications are what makes the events notable. HonestManBad (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Keep: BLP1E doeesn't apply because there are at least 4 events that have received coverage in secondary sources: 1) The 1/6 tweets, 2) the Hitler tweet, 3) The Tucker Carlson appearance, and 4) The Joe Rogan appearance. While it is true that none of these in themselves would make someone notable, the fact that these events have been covered in secondary source does. Additionally, Cooper has tens of thousands of paid subscribers on Substack, making him one of the highest earners on the site.[11] Mr. Squidroot (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

• Delete a podcaster interacting with other podcasters and making some noise for bigoted tweets is not proof of notoriety. The article also seems like a puff piece. A lot of sources are subpar, unreliable, and some were also pulled from ChatGPT. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Leftist talking points and elitism isn't a policy-based argument. JDiala (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, the sources from a scan of the internet and available media shows that this should meet GNG. Per Mr. Squiqroot. This article should not be deleted, but more WP:BEFORE should have been done. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: In case this page was kept kindly move this page to Darryl Cooper (which is redirect to itself). Current title includes an unnessesary disambiguation. Ping me or the closing admin themself can do it if possible. Thank You and No opinion on the AFD itself. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  Support this comment. It does not make sense to have a disambiguation unless needed. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, plenty of sources. JDiala (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep NebulaDrift (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost none of these keep !votes have any relevance to our notability guidelines. Do we have WP:GNG/WP:NBIO here or not? That's the question at hand. Getting a lot of attention on social media or having a highly subscribed Substack are not relevant to WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

• Very weak keep per WP:GNG, there are perhaps enough reliable sources, but the article needs major shortening with the current RS. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Radio proposed deletions

• BluRadio (via WP:PROD on 22 March 2025)