Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birth of public radio broadcasting


 * 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 delete. Consensus is already overwhelmingly clear, there is no need to prolong this discussion. I will retain the talk page as G8 exempt. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Birth of public radio broadcasting

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is a mess, and a Doug Coldwell creation. The whole premise is that Lee de Forest supposedly did the world's first public radio broadcast. As it turns out, this claim is not supported by the sources. The source for "this event is regarded as the birth of public radio broadcasting" actually says "In 1910, he attempted the first live broadcast from New York's Metropolitan Opera House (starring Enrico Caruso)." In other words, he took a source that doesn't support this claim at all and spun it into an OR creation. The line "The birth of public radio broadcasting had an immediate impact on radio broadcasting as it stimulated the idea of having additional musical programs." is entirely original research.

This one broadcast isn't individually notable, and this article never should have been created. This particular event is sufficiently covered at Lee de Forest, which also shows that this wasn't even the first broadcast by de Forest, identifying a 1909 broadcast of a suffragette speech by de Forest's mother-in-law! That this was even created, let alone passed GAN makes a mockery of the entire process. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. How terribly sad to see all this. The article's premise is simply mistaken and the claims are based on nothing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do think a wider article on the early history of public radio broadcasting could potentially be notable (even if this particular event may not warrant its own article). However, this article would have to be completely rewritten, as it is extremely misleading. As the nominator says, this article itself contradicts Lee de Forest, and there are significant issues with source-text integrity. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that the ostensible subject of the article (early history of public radio broadcasting) could be an encyclopedic topic. Sadly that is not what we have here. If we did, I would have stubbified and moved on (to PDEL copyvio) instead of using AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also note that I agree with Sammi Brie's comment below; this isn't even about public radio broadcasts. So the entirety of the article is based on two falsehoods. This already was not the first radio broadcast that the public heard, but even if it were, this was also not the first broadcast of public radio. Given that it wasn't the first radio broadcast heard by the public, nor was it the first public-radio broadcast, I do not believe it meets the GNG. I also doubt its long-term significance, since if something already happened once, the next occurrence of that thing isn't typically as important. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't deserve to exist. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  16:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete a DC doozie. (I stared at that article for half an hour trying to figure out what next; glad TAOT took it on.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Closing admin: is it possible to save the talk page here for history? It was a DYK hook, ran four times on OTD, and in spite of several threads on talk questioning the article, it was promoted GA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the admin not pressing the button, consider adding G8-exempt to the talk page to keep bots from deleting it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the talk page should be at least retained. Even though the article should definitely be deleted, I think the talk page may still be a "page that is useful to Wikipedia" because of its OTD appearances and because it is a delisted GA. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fabrication. Even the title is gimmicky and unencyclopedic. An article about this specific event, presuming that it deserves one, should be named for the event: Lee de Forest radio broadcast of January 1910, for example. This title reads like the headline for a local-interest story. (I can almost see it now, beginning with "113 years ago today, a Council Bluffs man tried to get radio off the ground." And ending with a joke about pledge drives.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Feels like an essay or OR. Public broadcasting is different in each country and the article doesn't make that clear. Seems to draw conclusions that aren't in the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. We already have other articles that provide much better coverage of this subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete The title is terrible (radio broadcasting to the public is not what "public radio" is to most people), the content is terrible, the provenance is terrible. A page whose deletion will be good for the encyclopedia and our readers. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 07:52, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to History of broadcasting. Other possible targets would be History of radio or Radio broadcasting. WP:BLAR would preserve everything and among those is a plausible redirect. Whether those three agree on the history is a different matter. Slywriter (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Normally I would not object to a redirect, but in this case there is nothing worth preserving. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with TAOT. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per TAOT. I saw this AfD because I watchlisted the original GA review page back when it was nominated (before that page existed), and saw Sandy add a template to it. I don't do much GA reviewing, but take a look at the list of noms once in a while in case something jumps out. Around that time I came across a few nominations by prolific GA writers that seemed to have really fundamental problems (inappropriate scope/title, reliance on in-universe sourcing, notability concerns, etc.). I didn't dig into the sources of this one, but even still it seemed more like a small part of another article, spun out and given an inappropriate title/framing, rather than an independently notable event. I remember thinking "how is a reviewer going to even approach this?" To my surprise, it pretty much sailed through the review process (as did the others FWIW, mostly not articles by DC IIRC). Looking forward to seeing how the ongoing GA RfC will pan out, and how it will find a balance between minimum standards and not becoming a huge task for a reviewer. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.