Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Wimbledon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Wimbledon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There’s a shortage of independent reliable sources on the page about the topic which show that the standards of inclusion per the WP:GNG. There’s nothing much I can find otherwise. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and England. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as an ATD we could redirect to Wimbledon Championships where much of the content is replicated. My difficulty is that this could be misleading (Wimbledon is a place outside of the tennis championship) and it seems an unlikely search term. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a lot here and this was a very popular radio broadcast. I listened to it in the evening for years and years. Perhaps it should be an all-encompassing article on Wimbledon on the radio? Now it's handled by "Wimbledon Radio." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT, the decision to keep is based on coverage in independent reliable sources per the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient independent references although the article probably needs to be reduced in length to remove some of the unsourced material which is more than a decade out of date. Rillington (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 2&3 in the article seem to meet the WP:GNG with multiple paragraphs of independent coverage in each, combined with [[1]] I think there is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Some cleanup is needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a huge deal back in the day. The topic is pretty significant and well-covered, but it could use some cleanup to bring it up to date. Waqar💬 17:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.