Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 Live Report


 * 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, or merge. What is clearly evident here is there is no support for deletion. Keep is the result for now, merging is also strongly supported, so a merge may be most appropriate. That is for the talkpages of the respective articles. Keeper   76  19:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

5 Live Report

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been tagged for 9 months. Programme doesn't exist anymore in anycase. Traditional unionist (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep. Once notable, always notable. Defunct programs are as notable as current ones. --Eastmain (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it wasn't notable in the first placeTraditional unionist (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to BBC Radio 5 Live--Rtphokie (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Rtphokie. LotLE × talk  00:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as it's far more logical as a section of BBC Radio 5 Live than as a stand-alone unreferenced stub. I strongly agree that notability is not temporary but this article fails to prove notability so a merge is warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - notability doesn't expire, but I don't believe this had any notability in the first place --T-rex 03:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per the above unless sourced adequately to show notability separate to that of Radio 5 Live. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are loads of sources readily available from Google searches to show notability, including        . I'll try to work some of those into the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to invite those who commented above based on a lack of references in the article to take another look at it now. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Nice additions but it still needs to be merged.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Why? Those references are all about the programme 5 Live Report, not the station Radio 5 Live, so they show independent notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources to convince me.  Radioinfoguy (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question The article claims that this is a current and existing program but, the references (most of which seem to "mention" the program but, not be about the program) are from years past. I can't find any reference to its current existence on the BBC Radio Five Live webpage. I except that if it was once notable than it still is notable but, can we address the issue of it's current existence or lack there of as a matter of urgency. Also, if the article is kept may I suggest that the section on "notable" reports be in someway rewritten as to not appear to be a list possibly promoting agendas and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. As you say this is no longer part of Five Live's schedule, so I have changed the three occurrences of "is" to "was" and the one "are" to "were". That took far less time than it takes to demand that someone else does the editing. As regards the references, they are media and book sources independent of the BBC reporting what 5 Live Report said. That is very much about the programme rather than just mentioning it. As for the "notable reports" section, I wrote that based on the sources that I could find - I certainly wasn't promoting any agenda. Note that I also added the statement on criticism of the programme. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please understand I wasn't demanding someone else does the editing. I was simply asking that someone that might be able to manuever through the subject and such better than I had a look. I also was not intending to accuse anyone of promoting an agenda. I simply meant that the section might be seen that way (in no way was it meant in anyway personal). Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and thank you for clarifying. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to five live. nice to see the references, but i still think it works better as a section in a more comprehensive article.Yobmod (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm really finding all of these "merge" comments difficult to understand. I don't see any precedent in Wikipedia for articles on radio and TV programmes being merged with the articles on the stations where they are broadcast, and if this was merged with BBC Radio 5 Live it would seriously unbalance that article, as no other individual programme gets more than a one-liner there. Would people be calling for merging if this programme had a different title that didn't happen to include the name of the station? I very much doubt it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The programme definitely meets the general notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2008 (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.