Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books on the 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Books on the radio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:CFORK of audiobook. "Books on radio" is not an established term is just another way of saying "audio book". We don't really differentiate if a book is read on radio vs audiobook, in fact many audiobooks are originally radio books and vice versa - they are all the same thing. Most "radio books" are categorized under Category:Audiobooks by title or series. This article looks like an attempt to create a list-article of books read on the BBC, mainly, which might be acceptable if it wasn't in the 1000s since it makes up the entire product catalog of AudioGO, the audiobook publisher of BBC productions. It's fine to discuss the topic in audiobook and radio drama. Also it's unsourced so a Keep vote would need to also establish using reliable sources that this is a notable topic separate from audiobook or radio drama. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdraw Books on the radio is probably a legitimate radio format genre see Category:Radio formats for radio genres such as radio documentaries, sports radio, etc.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Books read on BBC should be a sub section or indicator on Audio books, that is a better way to handle this. --Nlfestival (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete (See my remarks below) I see that this article has a long history, and it looks as though the primary intent was to identify radio programmes where book abridgements could be listened to. That is not what Wikipedia is for and there are now better ways of obtaining the information. Whatever the intention, the article lost its way because under Radio 4 Extra is listed a number of programmes that are not, and could never be confused with, serial book adaptations. Radio 4 Extra does have them, rebroadcast from the BBC archives, but these are not examples. Expanding Audiobooks and redirecting to there would seem to be the way to go because that article concentrates on the US experience and fails to make the point that in the UK and probably most of the world radio readings have been the main outlet historically and many releases in other media originate from that. There might be material enough for a proper history of the topic, and if so I might reconsider my vote, but there is little in the present article that should be kept so a merge does not seem appropriate. --AJHingston (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable being covered in detail in sources such as the Encyclopedia of Radio and Rough Guide to Internet Radio. Myself, I highly recommend the The Lord of the Rings (1981 radio series).  That was a dramatisation rather than a reading but there's plenty of both and so there's lots to say here.  Developing the topic is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Those sources are about radio drama and radio comedy. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Either merge with audiobooks or rename to List of BBC audiobooks. I agree with the nominator's FORK rationale, and if the list is kept as a list of BBC audiobooks, it should be titled as such.  p  b  p  18:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep These are a specific class of audiobooks, those presented in narrated form on radio; up to now, almost all audiobooks are presented as physical recordings.   DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is confusing the media with the product. For example there are no articles for books on CD-ROM, books on MP3, books on cassette tape, books on vinyl, etc.. the books on radio are exactly the same productions the BBC sells on MP3 and CD-ROM through AudioGO and Audible.com. The same exact production and product distributed concurrently via different media. They are simply audiobooks, no special "class" of audiobooks, just brand names ("BBC") and media distribution channels (radio, MP3, CD-ROM etc..). The old time radio productions are covered in radio drama and radio comedy. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment If book readings are considered to be covered under radio drama and radio comedy then we do have a big categorisation problem. Every day the BBC has readings (by a single voice) of book abridgements. I have never thought of them, or heard them referred to, as radio drama. They are quite different in many ways and have been a major component in radio output from very early. Book readings do not need even to be of fiction, and on the BBC frequently are not. I must admit that I had been thinking of this article as being intended to be about readings, from the evidence of the article's history, but the title could encompass book dramatisation. Agreeing with Green Cardamom that we should not confuse medium with content, we do need to decide what content we are discussing and how best to cover it. Colonel Warden is quite right that something like the BBC's 1981 Lord of the Rings trilogy is a book dramatisation, but it is marketed in other forms as an audiobook. To avoid confusion I have decided to strike my vote above. It had not occurred to me until I saw Green Cardamon's remarks about 'old time radio productions' above that it might not have been appreciated by everyone just how much alive all this is (and BTW, the BBC re-broadcast Orson Welles' 'War of the Worlds' only the other day). If radio dramatisation is to be included then doing so in an article entitled audiobooks makes little sense. Indeed, there is a continuity with, say, Charles Dickens' stage readings of his books, and an article on book readings ought to to address it. After all, if it is content that matters whether readings were live (as early radio ones will have been) or recorded is irrelevant. We need to resolve this sensibly, and perhaps the answer would be to keep this article but recast, probably concentrating mainly on the BBC's output if they have been the major commissioner of this material in English. --AJHingston (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The BBC book readings are audiobooks. They are productions which are concurrently distributed through multiple channels: radio, AudioGO, Audible.com, Amazon.com (CD-ROM) etc.. the media these books are distributed on varies, but the product is the same. It's an audiobook. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * But they are not radio drama, as you suggest above. There is not really any doubt as to notability here, the question is how best to cover it. If we take today's output of one of the BBC channels, Radio 4 as a typical example, that contains book readings and dramatised book adaptation as well as original drama. The title 'books on the radio' spans those. A case can indeed be made for radically recasting and probably retitling audiobooks to cover spoken performance of books in whatever medium, including stage, putting dramatised spoken performance in another article even though those may then be marketed as audiobooks, or many other permutations. As things stand, though, a simple redirect is not possible, nor is a merge because the present content is unsuitable. The audiobooks article is not about this at all, including the absurd statement that the first audiobook was made in 1969, ignoring radio altogether. --AJHingston (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The books heard on BBC are not exclusive for or to radio, sorry. It is similar to documentaries, the BBC makes them and distributes on web, TV, movie theater and DVD. We don't differentiate between documentaries aired on TV and those on DVD, they are just documentaries regardless of the media. Some people never saw The Blue Planet on TV but they own the DVD and probably think of it as a DVD product. Likewise BBC audiobooks are distributed via CD-ROM and digital download through partners such as Audible.com, Amazon.com and others. The shows air on BBC for free since BBC like PBS is a public institution but that doesn't mean they are a special type of audiobook, they are indistinguishable from any other audiobook. The article audiobook says "An audiobook is a recording of a text being read". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is true that we would not distinguish between the cinema, television and DVD release of the same film, but we do distinguish in other respects between media and between networks, so I am not sure your premise is correct. Remember that the BBC commissions material primarily for broadcast, and the book readings are not necessarily released in other media - that is subject to commercial and copyright considerations and historically the option would not even have been available. It is very different from the case of a DJ's playlist. The audiobooks article does not even mention radio, and to give it due weight would have to undergo major expansion and editing. It is that which worries me - such a change in scope should really be discussed on the audiobooks talk page, and a redirect there is not even on the cards at this point. The more I think about it an article rather more extensive than the present audiobooks one would be possible eventually on the subject of books on the radio (bearing in mind that straight readings and dramatisations are in scope). My inclination is to reduce the present article, if necessary to a stub, keep it, and let it develop from there. --AJHingston (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I was going to try and approach this from another angle and point out that we don't have articles on other generic radio topics like sports.. but in fact we have sports radio and indeed a whole Category:Radio formats including radio documentary -- so "books on the radio" is obviously a legitimate radio format genre next to these. The change of perspective came from looking at it from the POV of radio format genre instead of audiobook titles. The article should focus on the radio genre and less on listing audiobooks, except as part of retelling the genre's history. I think that will clear up the confusion. I've issued a Withdraw above however since others voted delete it will close normal procedure I believe. Content issues can be worked out separately from the AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2013 (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.