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

Zimmer Radio

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

I don't think this single-city radio station group meets WP:CORP, though the individual stations are notable. Worth noting: I actually expected an article on another Zimmer Radio. This company is an offshoot of a different, family-related company which owns stations in other Missouri markets (principally Columbia and Springfield; they were founded in Cape Girardeau) and is historically larger than the Joplin Zimmer group. There may be enough coverage for it, given that it existed for a longer period of time, but I am not sure. There is also an important court decision this year in a case titled Zimmer Radio of Mid-Missouri, which again is not the Joplin group. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Missouri. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:53, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cardwell

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

Article lacking sources and WP:BEFORE turns out nothing to pass WP:GNG or any other criteria. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Northern Ireland. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTCV. Svartner (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eke Chukwu

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

I can't see anything suggesting notability as we define it. Autobiography of actor playing minor parts and making his own non-notable films. Refs are junk like IMDB and the Express too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the Internet Movie Database and the Daily Express newspaper are junk. The IMDb is the world's most popular and authoritative source for movie, TV and celebrity content where you can find ratings and reviews for the newest movie and TV shows. The Daily Express is, according to Wikipedia: A national daily United Kingdom middle-market newspaper printed in tabloid format. Published in London, it is the flagship of Express Newspapers, owned by publisher Reach plc. It was first published as a broadsheet in 1900 by Sir Arthur Pearson. Its sister paper, the Sunday Express, was launched in 1918. In June 2022, it had an average daily circulation of 201,608. To call these reference sources 'Junk' appears to be disingenuous. Ekechukwu (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Imdb is junk to be frank, it's user contributed, so we can't trust anything that's published there. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ekechukwu, perhaps "junk" was a bit strong, but IMDB is not acceptable here because its entries can be self-created and self-edited, and the Express, along with the Mail and Sun are seen here as unreliable. The only UK papers viewed as good independent sources are the Guardian, the Times, the Telegraph, the FT and their Sunday equivalents. In any case, the issue is more about whether you meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) than the sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the IMDb cites, as they are not acceptable to use as sources in the text, and I requested cites for the unreferenced assertions. Now it will be easier for people to evaluate the sources that do appear in the entry. Certainly this article should be trimmed of much of the trivia per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about this person, some theatre reviews are posted, but they're more about the overall production, than about this person. Has had a long career, but appears non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I could find were directory listings on IMDb, Tubi, Rotten Tomatoes, and similar websites listing works by this subject. A search of books and newspapers turned up nothing substantive. If the unsourced or poorly sourced material were removed, we would be left with just a list of appearances that doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of non-iMDb sources/significant coverage and article was created for promotional purposes. Go D. Usopp (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ekechukwu, You might not be aware of our concerns that poorly sourced articles are being used as an excuse by powerful critics to try to take away our charitable status. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments raised above. DonBeroni (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Radio (Cambridge and Ely)

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

Nothing in the article shows this station is notable. The sources, and my BEGFORE, show only routine coverage at the catalogue or passing mentions, failing WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Articles about radio stations which cover a single city and its surrounds are seen as notable enough for them to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore this article clearly passes this long established notability test. Rillington (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rillington So it's notable because WP:ITSNOTABLE? Recursion (computer science) is fun but not a very good argument in deletion. And there is no "long established notability test" - or, on contrary, it fails it, since WP:BCASTOUTCOMES clearly says: "Licensed broadcast radio and TV stations are generally deleted if they lack significant coverage in reliable sources." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of notable references. WP has better things to do than to chase down articles that have been contributed to hundreds of times over more than twenty years. Smb1001 (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smb1001 Which references are "notable"? Can you elaborate, in the spirit of WP:THREE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article definitely needs bolstering. I've tried with references, but my access to the good ones all stops in the early 2000s (Cambridge paper and Broadcast). The problem with the sourcing is there's nothing really in-depth. For a radio station that had a 27-year run as an independent entity, that's a bit disconcerting. Like, there's enough there to put a barebones history in. But one or two in-depth articles would make me feel a lot better about this station having an article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to very specifically reply to the above !votes from Rillington and Smb1001. Arguments like Rillington's used to carry the day on this encyclopedia. Then we had the 2021 NMEDIA RfC. It told us in no uncertain terms that our longtime direction was too lax—and I should know, I instigated the whole thing. If you haven't been around the topic area in the last few years, this is a mindset shift that can be alien to you. And the sourcing I have found is passable but just short of where I'd truly want to see it to make a keep !vote of my own. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop B. Radio

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

A review of supplied sources reveals most of the coverage is in sources about or interviews with Brandon "Scoop B" Robinson, including (alas) a WP:FORBESCON piece. A selective merge there may be advised. Suspect promotional editing. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Sports, Basketball, New Jersey, and New York. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect; I don't see any strong evidence for the notability of Scoop B. Radio as an independent entity. Any info about it are is no doubt better included into Scoop B's article, but I think it would be sensible to leave behind a redirect just in case anybody does end up going looking for it. Athanelar (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Redirects

Radio proposed deletions

Pop Club (via WP:PROD on 17 September 2025)

Radio station templates