Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you Still Awake? (Radio Show)

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

A radio show that ran for one month, no evidence of notability. We're not a directory of every BBC radio program. See also, this AfD for other similarly short-lived programs. Also included for the same reasons of a handful of episodes: There will be another bundle, but I don't want this to be monstrous. TravellingCari 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   --  TravellingCari  18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   --  TravellingCari  18:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every BBC show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point. DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari  19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's not our place to make that decision. Notability policy for TV and radio shows is very clear: length is irrelevant, so long as the show was broadcast beyond a local market (and even then there are many examples where this rule is broken). 23skidoo (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  00:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect to BBC Radio 4 (or other meaningful target). That these all lasted for just several episodes is not a deterrent to notability, but the fact that these articles have nothing more than that, and no sources, does not leave much more than a bare stub. Merge/redirect would allow these articles to be recreated as standalones when more details and reliable sources can be added, without losing any of the minimal info and history already here. There should be articles out there announcing the new shows and describing why they lasted so briefly. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural speedy close. This is a completely improper use of batch nominations. The length a TV or radio series runs is irrelevant to its notability (see Wonderfalls as one random example), and notability policy for radio and TV shows has established that programs broadcast nationally by a national network are notable; if the BBC doesn't meet that criteria I don't know what does. But beyond that, there is no way to conduct a viable AFD for this batch as any one of these series may have an independent claim to notability. No prejudice against relisting separately, but attempting to do an AFD discussion in this context will just lead to a mess and may result in a legitimately notable series article being deleted.  23skidoo (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * agree speedy close - "I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern" ... just because a Article fits a pattern is no reason to AFD it. Isnt a Nominator expected to do some a reasonable search? "first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself..."??? if Admins dont try, why should anyone else? Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:07, 8 October 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.