Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The German Student (radio)

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 all. The discussion lends itself more to the opinion of merging the material, but as several commentators have noted, there is little or nothing to merge. With no indications within the discussion that redirects are appropriate, I will not close this with a consensus to merge and redirect, but editors should not be prevented from setting up redirects to the main article Fritzpoll (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German Student (radio) and other Radio Tales articles

Please note that these articles have already been nominated for speedy deletion and that the result was keep. However, I still think that they should be considered for deletion mainly because:

Since the speedy keep, User:Soundout has been blocked for 30 days for link spamming. Each article indeed clearly aims at promoting Radio Tales, Winnie Waldron and Winifred Phillips (names that are mentioned multiple times in every single article). This cast doubts on the integrity of the articles.
The introduction of each article is copied and pasted from one article to the next.
The core of each article is a summary of the source material. However you can already find this summary in the main article so it's redundant here. For example, the plot summary in The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) is roughly the same as the one in The Yellow Wallpaper.
Notability is questionable. Although the source material is notable, the radio dramatizations are not.
Additionally, the articles are not well-sourced (they only appear to be so). Most of the references only apply to the Radio Tales series as whole, or to the source material, but not to the individual shows.
The Awards, Media, Broadcast History and Product Information are also copied and pasted from one article to the next. Some of these sections, such as Awards, actually apply to the Radio Tales series and not the individual articles. So if we remove the redundant sections, there's basically nothing remaining in the article.

So I would suggest to delete these articles and possibly merge them with the article of the source material (i.e. merging The Yellow Wallpaper (radio) into The Yellow Wallpaper) - possibly by creating a "radio dramatizations" section in each article.

DGG suggested to do the following: "Add to the list in the main article (Radio Tales) the date of broadcast and, where it isn't obvious, the work presented." I think it makes sense since the date of broadcast is really the only piece of information that we need to keep since it cannot be found elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Other nominated articles:

Laurent (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep All~~ This radio series has won multiple awards and has a large number of sources, showing that not just the original source material, but the radio dramatizations are. The intro is not copy-pasted, though elements are the same since they are part of the same series. The summary of the source material is too long, but that is only part of the articles, simple editing should take care of that. Edward321 (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Awards, Media, Broadcast History and Product Information are also copied and pasted from one article to the next. These sections actually belongs to the main Radio Tales article in my opinion. So if we shorten the plot summary, remove the redundant sections, there's basically nothing remaining. That's really my main point - the articles are disguised advertisments for Radio Tales and - if you look closely - don't actually have any real contents. Additionnally, it's the Radio Tales series (which already have its own article) which received the awards, not the individual shows. Laurent (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to Delete. Information and citations are covered at Radio Tales so these articles are unneccessary duplication. Edward321 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest that they be merged. The plot sections do not provide any new information not already found elsewhere. The awards sections do not mention awards won by that particular story. They mention awards won by the series. So, a main article can have info on the series, a list of stories, and a list of awards. Each story the list can link to the main story article. -- kainaw ™ 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. This one is tricky on first glance; kudos to Laurent for noticing the identical content. Powers ^T 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' into the Radio Tales article. Awards appear to have been awarded to the series as a whole, not the individual radio plays. I don't think there's much point in having a 'radio dramatisations' section in the play articles, perhaps just a line linknig to the Radio Plays article, as a whole section is likely to be a very short section. --Ged UK 14:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article, List of Radio Tales plays. There's too much information here that would swamp the top level article, but a list of the individual plays could easily cover everything relevant. JulesH (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was thinking about nominating these myself, but it slipped my mind. There is already a list of the adaptations in Radio Tales, and the articles consist mainly of plot summaries of the works of fiction on which the radio shows are based; so I don't see much potential for merging. Most of these literary works have been adapted many, many times for presentation in various media, including radio, and we don't need an article for each individual adaptation. (Brief mentions of such adaptations, depending on their importance, are often included in the articles on the literary works themselves, though.) Deor (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all I actually nominated all of these articles for deletion (see here) soon after they were created, seeing that they were about nonnotable radio shows and created by single-purpose account only using Wikipedia to promote the shows. The AfD was speedy kept with little to no analysis of how and why the articles were created with excuses like "a lot of hard work went into them". Since then other editors have become wary of the creator's orignal intent and he has now been blocked. Each of these articles is about a nonnotable show created with a conflict of interest and each doesn't belong here. Themfromspace (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that the Radio Tales article already lists the individual shows. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia has no place for spam.--Sloane (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge This is excessive detail. Add to the list in the main article the date of broadcast and, where it isn't obvious, the work presented. DGG (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge following DGG's useful suggestion above. These entries do not have sufficient notability to stand as articles. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Spammy, non-notable with pointless copypasta details. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient notability. Details already located elsewhere on wikipedia. JamesBurns (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep of ALL and then list seperately so that issues of each may be properly addressed one-by-one on each's individual merits. Listing 63 artilces in one MASSIVE AfD, though it may be easier to do so, is a disservice to wikipedia and editors that might attempt correction.... and makes it darn near impossible. If any have won awards, and can be shown to have won those awards, then individual articles are merited if such articles would overburden existing related articles. Tag for expansion and sourcing and let all 63 be properly improved with the WP:DEADLINE wiki establishes for such improvement. Since they CAN be improved, it improves Wiki that they be so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:DEADLINE, and indeed there's no reason to rush to delete them. However, one thing we shouldn't forget is that the articles are borderline spam (to say the least), so there is no reasons to leave them on Wikipedia indefinitely just in case somebody, some day, found out something more to say about them. Laurent (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In agreement that current versions can greatly benefit from copyedit and additionl sourcing. My difficulty is that even if only 3 or 4 or even 15 might be suitable for individual articles, massing them altogether in one AfD kind of paints the whole bunch with the same brush... and further, if even one were to be made to absolutley shine, it would be lost in the crowd and likely swept off of wiki with the rest. I like attempting rescues if a subject can be brought up to standards... which is why I joined the Article Rescue Squad. And certainly, improving one article to meet concerns at an AfD can be time-consuming... but 63 at once? Ouch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Might it be possible to get an admin (I'm thinking there may be a tool to help) or just an editor to copy the text from each of these onto a userspace? That would allow the time to develop those that are developable, whilst ditching the ones that aren't. They can then be reintroduced as standalone articles or just small sections within the parent article. That also means that these versions are removed (which seems to be the way this AfD is going). --Ged UK 22:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USERFYing an article is always an option. If this AfD closes a "delete" or "delete all", all you need do is ask the closer to Userfy them to a workspace which will them give time to bring what ones as can be improved to address any concerns brought up at this AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't know quite why i phrased it like that, i knew perfectly well it was possible! I think what i was subtly driving at is would you want them on your userspace for the time being to work on, as you've shown the most interest. Clearly the ARS could be drafted in to help. I don't mind them going in my userspace, but i know i have no time, nor much inclination, to work on them. --Ged UK 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's why DGG's suggestion is good. It's still reasonably fair to the articles, and it's also a much simpler solution than doing some massive editing / research work to try to save each individual article. Eventually, I just hope that the articles won't stay just because it's so much work to deal with them that nobody will be bothered to do anything about them. Laurent (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To anybody objecting to a mass-nomination: have you actually looked at these articles? They're very formulaic and all the same. All created by the same user, and all follow the same formula. If this wouldn't be bundled there would be dozens of AfD's and each one would have the same !votes from the same people (probably copy/pasted from one to the next). The mass bundle is a huge service to those who patrol AfDs, can you imagine reasonably asking people to vote on all of these? Themfromspace (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning towards delete (the article titles aren't likely search terms), however, I would like to see if there is a way for one of these to surpass the notability of the main Radio Times audio play article, describing the creation and reception of one radio play to great depth beyond "winning an award". Since these are all retellings of existing works of fiction, there's no need for going into plot details (and unless sourced, any changes in the plot for the radio edit would be OR). Editorially I feel a better article can be obtained by merging all these to the parent and describing the notable aspects there, but I remain open to the possibly of expansion beyond that. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to Radio Tales per DGG. Much of these pages are duplicated content; what isn't can probably fit in a short list in the series article, besides plot summary which can be found by linking to the articles on each of the original works. DHowell (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, the articles' creator is not "banned", but is blocked for 30 days. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - I've updated the article. Laurent (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The awards don't make it notable, but the series itself is notable. Notable series get their own episode list, by current wikipedia rules. I'd also like to point out, to all those who were saying Merge, that you can not merge that much information into one article. The Radio Tales article already list the names of all the series. No way to fit even a brief summary of all of them to it. Also, I just found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al All of this has been nominated before. I would like to point out also, that looking through the articles, I note that some are "part of an award winning season", and others just list what the program itself got. So the show itself gets an award for various years, but not the individual episodes. Every episode on a television show one season wouldn't be notable because that season won an award. It is however notable for being part of that award winning series, as via wikipedia episode lists policy(I'm sure they have one somewhere). Dream Focus 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable series get their own episode list, by current wikipedia rules" - there's no problem with that, however by current Wikipedia standards, TV series, no matter how notable, don't get an article per episode. Have a look at the episode list on Lost (season 1). It's perfectly possible to put some reasonable amount of information within a list. In the case of Radio Tales, we can have the show title, the date, a link to the original material, and a brief plot summary (only when necessary since a plot summary is already in the source material article). I don't think that would take that much space. Again, most of the articles are made of sections that are copied and pasted from one article to the next. So we can take this copied and pasted information, put it once on the main article and we are done with it. Laurent (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to DreamFocus showing the last AfD as a speedy keep. Well done. I was not aware of it when I first opined a keep. Now I feel vindicated. And looking over the comparison to Lost (season 1), we're talking about 63 shows here, not 24. And these are 63 different shows... not 24 episodes of a comon series with the same cast listings. Trying to merge that much information would either result in the main article being tremendously overburdened, or the merged informations so whittled down as to reusult in a grave loss to Wiki. Its not as if we're cutting down trees here... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While pointing out that Lost has 24 episodes and this series has 63, you should also note that each episode of Lost is unique. It is not a presentation of a previous work that already has an extensive article on Wikipeida. If an episode of Lost was nothing more than a presentation of Hamlet, the episode list would not contain a summary of Hamlet. It would contain a link to Hamlet. Nobody would complain. However, in this series, there is a dire need to repeat the entire summary of a book that has already been summarized in the book's article. What is the true benefit in doing that? Are we that worried about a user having to click a link to read the main book summary? -- kainaw ™ 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge them all into an article separate from Radio Tales, say List of episodes of Radio Tales? -- llywrch (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be amenable into helping create one MONSTER article that includes all 63 sub articles... but we can have that merge discussion after these rae kept. Decent suggestion. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These episodes have to meet WP:N in order to have an aritcle about them. Radio tales meets WP:N, but none of the individual episodes do. The best place to mention these is in the main Radio Tales article. Listing each episode of a series as their own articles when they are nonnotable is using Wikipedia as a directory of information. The only episodes that belong here are those that are notable. Notability of the episodes is not inherited from the main series. They should be mentioned and given their due weight on the main article. A List of Radio tales episodes would be yet another indiscriminate list, which we already have too much of on Wikipedia. The list would have to satisfy WP:N in itself, and nothing has been written on the collective body of Radio Tales episodes. A mention in the main article is sufficient. Themfromspace (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False. These are not "episodes" as in television. However, even to consider them similarly, if the information would overburden the parent article, seperate articles are allowed. The informations if combined into a WP:List would not be indiscriminate, unless someone vandalizes the newer article to make it so. A mere "mention" would turn something worthwhile into something rivial and thus diminish wiki. Not quite a compromise. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Strong keep per Schmidt, MICHAEL Q, Dream, notable articles. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I was wondering about why it was okay to nominate 63 articles from Radio Tales in a masse effort when just 4 months ago, a similar albeit smaller effort at deleting 22 of them was speedy kept. I looked at the WP:POLICY WP:ATD#Deletion_discussion and read "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome."

But since there were no delete opininions at that prior AfD, it would be difficult to "improve" what a consensus of editors already overwhelmingly thought worth keeping. At that earlier nomination, every opining editor found no merit in the then nom's reasoning and the AfD was closed as speedy keep.

That the article's author was blocked for link-spamming elsewhere at a later time does not remove the sound resons for the earlier speedy keep.
If the article's introductions seem copied from each other is a matter for copyedit and not deletion.
If the core of each article is a summary from elsewhere, does not address that this "core" has been reasonably expanded in the article's themselves to make each unique. Such "core summary" exists on all such child-articles, such as the Lost (season 1) example given above. It is standard and accepted per guideline so as to contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject.
To say now that "notability is questionable" contravenes the 100% consensus of the previous AfD which did indeed find notability just 4 months ago.
The inclusions of the Awards shows the notability... of individual episodes and the series as a whole. Any article can be subjectively dis-assembled until nothing is left.

Nothing had changed since the last AfD to lessen or remove that consensus of speedy keep, other than to now increase the quanitty be articles being questioned from 22 to 63. Isn't this considered a form of WP:Policy shopping in that the same articles are again being sent to AfD with differing reasons in the hopes to this time get a different decision? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments may seem overwhelming to you, but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong.

Nobody is claiming that having a user blocked will override a speedy keep. The point is that the previous keep was a "speedy" keep. Not a "well-though-out" keep.
The point is that the entire content of the articles is just copied from other articles. So, what makes the articles unique? If they are not unique in any way, are they notable? Many people here have voiced the opinion that they are not notable on their own.
How does copying a summary of a book to a summary of some people reading the book increase a reader's understanding of the subject?
Previously, it was up for speedy deletion. In speedy deletion, you keep if there is any reason at all to keep. This is not speedy deletion. This is a regular deletion where we take time to discuss notability.
The inclusion of awards shows notability of the series, not individual episodes. Are you claiming that because a movie wins an Oscar, we should have an article about every person who worked on the movie and claim notability because they were a small part of something that won an award?

You have repeatedly claimed that merging it into the main article would make the main article too long. That is because you appear to be refusing to discuss what others have suggested: Merge it into the main article and link to the summaries of the articles that already exist. If you want to know what one of the stories is about, just read the story's article. There is no need to have a separate article that repeats the entire summary. -- kainaw ™ 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt, MICHAEL Q., as far as I can tell, the consensus here is that the individual radio shows are not notable and that they shouldn't have their own articles. Seriously, have a look at the "awards" sections - all of them roughly say that "the Radio Tales series has received numerous awards, including three additional Gracie Allen Awards in 2004, etc.". However this applies to the series not the indivudal shows. This section is clearly just there to give some weight to the article because without it there would just be a plot summary and most likely the articles would have been speedy deleted. Nobody is trying to do WP:Policy shopping here. I sincerely believe that these articles have nothing to do on Wikipedia, and that they were previously kept for the wrong reasons (most likely people didn't really went through the articles and noticed that they were all exactly the same except for the plot summary). Even in the previous discussion, a majority was at least suggesting a merge (4 out of the 6 people who voted!), so considering a merge seems perfectly reasonable to me. Laurent (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article has been listed on the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Ikip (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can consider a merge, and said so above to llywrch. And even ignoring the earlier Speedy Keep of the 22, Policy instructs that merge discussions take place on the article's talk page... or in this case 63 talk pages (chuckle)... and that an AfD is not the place for such. So... let's keep these, close down this AfD, and work together toward a merge of all into a new article as suggested by User:JulesH, llywrch, and others. I am quite ammenable to that, and feel inclined to politely disregard the opinion of the person who previously nominated 22 of these articles that were speedy kept. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose keeping these for a merge per my above rationale. Spam shouldn't be incorporated into the main article, it should be removed entirely. Themfromspace (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nom of the previous failed AfD, your WP:IDONTLIKEIT COI is apparent. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only interest here is getting rid of spam and promotion, of which I do all over Wikipedia, not just in AfD. Stop your bad faith accusations. Themfromspace (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you tried this before, no one seemed to agree with you that they were spam or promotion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Go to his page and you'll see others pointing out that his behaviour was inappropriate, and he has been blocked for it. Others here seem to agree as well. Sometimes it takes awhile for the truth to set in about an editor's motives. Themfromspace (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're still talking about the articles, rather than the author, others disagreed with you before. Speedy keep? You miss that? And yes, consensus can change, but it should not take even an perception of possible WP:Policy shopping to do so... and just 4 months after that speedy keep. Let's discuss the possibility of a merge into one article and how that one article can be brought up to standards. So instead of blanketing the discussion with negatively charged words such as "spam" and "indiscriminate", let's work toward creating something to improve the project. Yes? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← I'm calling a spade a spade. This is advertising. Advertising is not allowed on Wikipedia. We must get rid of the advertising somehow. The information here isn't suitable even if it wouldn't be advertising, so the only rational solution is to delete it. Go back to what it was like before the blocked spammer, which is what he is, came here. If any of these episodes ever become notable then we can have an article on them. At the present time, these articles are a detriment to Wikipedia and should be removed. Themfromspace (talk) 02:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, false. Unless of course you are then inferring that everything on Wikipedia be considered "advertising" if presenting information about a subject is "advertising" that subject. That the author was temp-blocked is not relevent to these discussions. It is improving the articles that we discuss. You are attacking the message because of some later action of the messenger. Again, let's discuss how these might be melded into a single article that meets your concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The messenger created these articles, his actions and bias are at the heart of the articles themselves. If they were merely corrupted by him I would have reverted them back to a usable form, but the articles themselves shouldn't be here as they were created with promotional intent, and there doesn't appear to be any way they could be cleaned to meet Wikipedia's policies. And just to get us on the right page, I'm not discussing improving them, I'm discussing deleting them per all of my statements here. This isn't a merge discussion, this is a deletion discussion. Themfromspace (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know I'm just another voice in a chorus here, but honestly these articles add nothing to Wikipedia. The series these episodes belong to is notable as a whole, and the original stories being portrayed in these episodes are also notable, but all of that exists as separate articles already. Having all of these articles in Wikipedia is like having a separate article for each of Abraham Lincoln's fingers (and I don't care how well-written the article on the right pinky is). -- Atama ^chat 00:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as nothing has changed since I made this argument the last time nearly two dozen of these were put up for mass deletion. Each article is still well-referenced with significant individual content relating to the episode, not merely the series as a whole, and appears to meet the standards for both notability and verifiability. That an editor involved with some of these has been blocked is not relevant to whether the articles should be kept or deleted, as long as they meet the other criteria. AfD is not cleanup nor is it Request for Merging. - Dravecky (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give examples as to which of the episodes meet WP:N? I don't think any have been covered in any depth by multiple, independant third-party sources. Themfromspace (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before saying that the radio shows are notable and the articles well-sourced, did you really read through a few - let's say 10-15 - of these articles? I've just picked 10 of them randomly, and I've actually found that they are not well-referenced. All the references apply to the series as a whole or to the source material but never to the individual shows. Finally, in my opinion it matters that the user has been blocked. It means that we need to look more closely at the articles since there's now a strong reason to believe that they've been written exclusively to promote a company. Laurent (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to point out that it is not proper AfD procedure to notify participants at previous AfDs (except article creators of course), although this has been done with this one. Also note that the ~~canvasser~~ notifier also voted in this AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply extended a polite courtesy to those editors who had an interest in the previous AfD. I did not suggest anyone "vote" keep or delete. Informing editors who were part of an earlier process is a wikicourtesy too often forgotten. As a VERY limited, neutral, and friendly message, simply inviting comment, it was not canvasing. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The issue is one of clean up and trimming repeated material, perhaps even a merger, but as notability has been established I don't think deletion is warranted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the relevant material is already on the main page. Which of these articles is notable and what sources do you have to back up that claim? I see most of the objections are procedural as some editors can't fathom a single AfD deleting so many articles, even if they are carbon copies of each other. Not a single person arguing to keep these articles has offered up any sources to prove their notability, even with dozens of subjects to choose from. All of the arguments are on procedural grounds, which are invalid as these articles are distinctly related to each other. They all share the same structure, sources (which don't demonstrate notability), and creator (who has been blocked for spamming). Themfromspace (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you consider "relevant" and what others might consider relevent are perhaps two different sides of the same coin. Working together to effect a proper merge into one article improves wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the Pokémon articles, which had dubious individual notability and lots of boilerplate that pretended to be relevant references when they were actually references about Pokémon as a whole. Those articles were merged to lists. Those lists are horrible. If someone comes up with some radical solution to this, that solution would be very helpful for the Pokémon articles. In the meantime, Radio Times is no Pokémon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Pokemon, the plot of each of these episodes is already detailed in other articles right on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Moon Voyager (radio) can be reduced to:

Moon Voyager: An adaptation of The First Men in the Moon by H. G. Wells, first broadcast on November 6th, 2001.

What more is there to know? If you want the plot, it is in the First Men in the Moon article. If you want to know when it first broadcast, it is right there. If you want to know about who did it, it is in the main Radio Tales article which is the proper place for that little bullet line. This is why so many people keep voicing the opinion to merge. -- kainaw ™ 14:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps cast? Production info? Reviews? Background on the specufic production? Comparisons betwen the original from the 30's? Those things that make them different and unique from each other and the books that inspired them? There are a number or ways an article can be expanded from one sentence you offer. By use of your logic, everything in the article The First Men in the Moon could itself be reduced to "The First Men in the Moon is a 1901 novel by H.G Wells that depicts a jouney to the moon", making it far less than a stub, and an incredible disservice to a peprerless "encyclopedia". It is the additional informations in any article that make it suitable for Wiki and that leada to greater understanding by the reader of an article's contents. These Radio Tales broadcasts can be expanded as well. However, and to repeat, although I still take issue with a mass AfD, I am amenable to combining all into an sourced, cogent, and notable article on an award-wining anthology series if the very existance of the 63 is so distasteful to some. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you've missed the point. Currently, the article on Moon Voyager does not contain anything unique. Therefore, linking to the articles which it copied from easily turns it into a one-liner. If you were to turn the First Men in the Moon article into a one-liner, you would need to link to an article that contains the story information. Your example did not do that. So, it appears that you claiming that we shouldn't reduce the article to a bullet point because it is possible that someone at some time in the future just might come along to make the article notable. What I am saying is that you are proposing we do it backwards. Make it a bullet point right now. At that magical time in the future when someone has notable things to write, expand it into a notable article. -- kainaw ™ 16:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that your argument would in turn reduce The First Men in the Moon to a one line stub and that the 63 articles can eventually be made suitable within the WP:DEADLINE to do so. That an article does not immediate shine, does not mean that they cannot be made to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we don't keep placeholder articles in the hope that someone might come along and write an actual article at some undetermined point in the future -- not when there is a perfectly good redirect target available. Only when the content specific to each production contained within the main Radio Tales article gets to be too much for that article, need we create articles, stubbed or otherwise. Powers ^T 20:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like any of the solutions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An award-winning anthology serie is clearly notable Warrington (talk) 10:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An award-winning series is notable, but does that mean that every element of the series is notable? If a movie wins an Oscar, do we make an article about every crew member who worked on the movie? If a song wins a Grammy, do we make an article about the sound engineer? The whole may be notable, but that doesn't mean that every little part is notable by itself. -- kainaw ™ 16:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Element"? We're talking about 63 unique Radio Plays that are different from each other in subject/cast/crew/production/reception... not about an "element" of a greater work... not a phaser in relation to Star Trek. Your stating it this way is akin to saying that The Sound of Music is an "element" of theater. But does this mean you might then be amenable to a single larger article that showed the notability you acknowledge? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article on the anthology series is not under discussion. The question is not just whether these specific productions presented as part of the anthology series are notable, as well as whether the current content of their articles is worth keeping. The argument is that each of the articles contains only a) boilerplate information that applies only to the series, not to individual productions, and b) plot summary. Powers ^T 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the argument that they were "elements" of something else had to be addressed, and improvements to the articles themselves can be addressed within the WP:DEADLINE set by wiki to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to discount Warrington's "Keep" recommendation as irrelevant to the topic at hand. Warrington certainly didn't address "the argument that they were 'elements' of something else". Powers ^T 20:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah... understood. If these then are kept with the intention to merge these 63 articles together into one larger article, I might then request assiatance from Warrington (et al) in stressing the (planned) article's notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the people arguing for "keep" are missing is that no one is proposing deleting any information. The plots are available at the parent articles, the list is available at the series article. If, at some time in the future, someone finds a source that does a comparison of the radio version of Hamlet to some other version of Hamlet, an article about that can be created at that time. Deleting the article that exists today won't interfere with that process.—Kww(talk) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (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.