Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summits on the Air

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 October 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 redirect to Amateur radio operating award. Except Logbook of The World. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 20:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summits on the Air

[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)

Also nominating

the same arguments apply to ~~both~~ all of these articles. These are ~~both~~ all sourced from sources which are either the contest's own website, amateur radio blogs, or the websites of entities which are closely associated with the contests (i.e. ARRL, RSGB) and are thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. My own searching didn't find anything better. There's also Draft:Parks on the Air, which I'm not formally including in this AfD since it's a draft, but basically this all applies there as well.

There's a few others in Category:Amateur radio operating awards, but the ones I've noted above seem the most egregious. For example, Jamboree on the Air, has a couple of good WP:RS (Irish Times, Christian Science Monitor) and thus qualifies for WP:GNG on its own.

As an WP:ATD, it might make sense to merge these all into Amateur radio operating award, which could be expanded to include a section on each one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: Upon further research, I've added most of Category:Amateur radio operating awards. All of these articles suffer from the same problem of nonWP:RS sourcing, and have significant overlap. They would all be better covered in a combined article. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logbook of The World is not an operating award so should not be included in this list.--Harumphy (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It suffers the same poor sourcing problems as the other articles, but you are correct that it's different from the others so I've struck it from the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Amateur radio operating award: Per nom. It's better to move both contents to the main page. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Logbook of The World as it is not an award as RoySmith has correctly pointed out. Please remove the AfD from that page. Dhpage (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The eight awards in the nom should be combined as separate sections of Amateur radio operating award to retain the images and references for each. Amateur radio is a somewhat esoteric and technical hobby and will always have the sourcing problem identified in the nom. Nonetheless, several million persons are licensed amateurs globally and the hobby has resulted in STEM careers for many. Dhpage (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think ham radio is great. I never got my license (mostly because when I was a kid, I didn't have the patience to learn morse code), but I do remember building a Heathkit receiver when I was in high school (googling around a bit now, I'm thinking HR-10B). I didn't have the theory at the time to actually understand how it worked, but I still remember the feeling of amazement when I powered it up for the first time and it worked! But, still, WP:GNG and WP:RS rule the day here. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2020 (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.