Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Today (website)


 * 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. – bradv 🍁  23:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Radio Today (website)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not an obviously notable website. Very few non-primary sources (most of the article is sourced from items on the website itself) and little or no coverage in reputable news outlets or academic sources. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Flip Format (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The website isn't just UK. There are Australian, American, and other versions. I suspect it's notable, but it's a very hard search term. do you know where to find sources here? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a lot of references to it, some outside the UK (such as Sydney Morning Herald) (see here), but nothing in-depth. As I understand it, Radio Today is a notable industry website at least. I agree it's a difficult search term; Googling the term "Radio Today" produces mainly links to the website, though the same thing happens if you Google other news outlets. I had slightly better luck with "Radio Today website". This is Paul (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think adding to the confusion here is the fact that there's a completely unrelated site in Australia, also called Radio Today. This makes it even harder to find sources and citations for the article relating to the .co.uk site. Flip Format (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A couple replies:
 * , I wasn't even aware they did coverage in other countries. Their UK and Ireland sites generally seem to be the most developed and cited; the rest is generally an aggregator of a number of other good radio sources.
 * It's a tough search term, and I do see founder Roy Martin quoted in a couple of places on radio topics (e.g. ), but I'm also not seeing in-depth coverage of the site itself. It's accepted as an RS in the radio projects for UK and Ireland topics, but we don't have an article on RadioInsight, which is similarly very densely cited for US radio happenings of the last 10 years, and NMEDIA gave me a real appreciation for the role of the GNG in this realm. I have to lean weak delete on the availability of sources about the site itself.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 20:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: At first, I thought this had to do with the branding "Radio2Day" or "2Day FM". But when I looked at it, I realized it was a radio news information site....and not a good one.  It's not all radio station news.  On the American side of the site these three articles just today and their entire "news" section is nothing related to radio station news.  On top of that, I hadn't even heard of it...which is bad.  If I haven't heard of a website related to radio, it's not that notable. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 23:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I ran across RadioToday a lot last year when I had to sort out the Greatest Hits Radio mess. It's probably about as common a citation for our UK pages as RadioInsight is stateside. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 02:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's probably why I've never seen Weak Delete !vote, since it does have uses in the UK. I still feel the non-radio station information (and lack of backing sources) really do it a disservice. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: A well known, and frequently used website on Wikipedia, detailing developments in the UK and worldwide radio industry and therefore notable It could do with more references and these can always be added as and when they are found. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Setting aside the international versions of the website (which seem to be less well maintained and more of a news aggregator), it is certainly notable enough from a UK perspective. Sadly the lack of references lets the article down, but as mentioned above its founder is referenced in other media. Also seems to be well known in the industry, and appears to have been active since at least 2004 (here's one of their articles from back then). Perhaps a solution could be to move this to draft space for the time being. This is Paul (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: That seems like a decent solution. The putative printed magazine that makes up much of the current article's content appears to have never actually happened, and if there are other notable things about this site, then those should be the focus of the article. If not a deletion, it needs a rewrite to assert notability. Flip Format (talk) 10:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem with relegating it to draft space means that it is far less likely to get the improvements the articles does need. Therefore, I feel that a better outcome would be the keep the article on Wikipedia but add the additional verifications tag to the top of the article. Rillington (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Radio Today is frequently cited, and generally considered a reliable source here. I think it is beneficial to keep this article. They have been quoted in The Guardian too. NemesisAT (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2021 (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.