Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio broadcast stations of Australia - historical summary


 * 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. Delete all Spartaz Humbug! 20:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Radio broadcast stations of Australia - historical summary

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This series of articles is mostly a massive collection of minutiae, technical data without actual (prose) content, violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of the historical radio stations of Australia may of course be a viable article subject, but this overly detailed, subdivided, massive group of lists is serious overkill. Fram (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Also nominated are:
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Queensland - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of New South Wales - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Victoria - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Australian Capital Territory - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of South Australia - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Western Australia - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Tasmania - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Northern Territory - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (AM radio) of Australia External Territories - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast networks of Australia - historical summary
 * Radio broadcast stations (FM radio) of New South Wales - historical summary
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep, though improvement is required.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 13:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What kind of improvement? For e.g. the stations of Queensland, we have List of radio station callsigns in Queensland (including both active and defunct stations) for the general overview, and individual articles like 4AM (AM) for the individual, more detailed information, inclduing e.g. former frequencies, power, callsign, etcetera. Why do we need lists that again have all the stations (as in the general list), but with that much detailed technical information (which can, if necessary, be included in the individual articles)? Fram (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I am the primary (sole?) author of this series of articles, consuming most of my spare time over the last few months. The intention is for the series of articles to provide a reliable, fully referenced, one stop shop for the all the technical details of every radio station which has ever operated in Australia. Most reference works on Australian radio have significant technical inaccuracies. This article seeks to set a new standard for accuracy. Yes, there is much minutiae, but this is the very material which is sought out by those with an interest in radio history. Perhaps the historical articles could be broken up station by station and placed in the wikipedia article for that individual station. But from what I can see most such present articles have little interest in displaying anything more than a brief historical overview. Most of the current audience of a station is not interested in information about ownership of the station from half a decade ago or its slogans used under long forgotten formats. I have started including some prose, but at this stage of development my focus is upon locating and extracting the chronological detail for inclusion in the article. I note that this series of articles already seems to have attracted favourable notice. The National Library of Australia generally places it at the top of the list of related websites whenever a search is made on their website for radio material. This series of articles has the potential to become the definitive reference work on the topic, surely this is consistent with Wikipedia's objectives? Samuel.dellit (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that that "favourable notice" required any human intervention and is not simply Wikipedia's position as the number one result for most Google searches? Fram (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

While I admire the creator's commitment to digging out more accurate information about the histories of Australian radio stations, what he's missing is that this isn't the format in which the information should be presented. We don't want massive lists of minutiae of this type, which compile all of the stations' technical histories into a single list — rather, each station's technical history should be detailed and referenced in the station's own article. Nobody is ever going to want or need the information to be presented as massive omnibus articles that compile the entire technical histories of every radio station in an entire Australian state or territory into one "overview" list. These lists should be deleted, with the data transferred into the more appropriate presentation — i.e. each station's own data given only in that station's own independent article — although I'd suggest moving them into the creator's sandbox space so he doesn't lose all the work he's already put in. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. OK guys, I get the picture, you do not want this material. What is fascinating to me is probably only of interest to a few hundred Australian radio history officiandos. I have copied all the articles as they are for my future use and will make no further edits in Wikipedia to these articles. Please delete the articles as soon as possible. I will continue my research and find another format and forum to present it. I am committed to the manageable concept of a small number of state-based and category-based articles (perhaps 50 or so). The thought of having to create or edit 5000+ individual Wikipedia station articles (all subject to this level of scrutiny) does not excite me. Keep up the good work guys, in general I like what you do. Samuel.dellit (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

G'day guys, I am not sure of the procedures here but the articles are still up on Wikipedia. I will delete the articles myself over the next day or two. Samuel.dellit (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The process is that an AFD discussion stays open for seven days — so we're only just today reaching the point in time when anything's allowed to happen at all. And even then, it might still be another couple of days before somebody actually gets around to closing it, because there are over 100 deletion discussions to deal with at any given time and not always enough people to actually handle the workload. Bearcat (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - An editors hard work at creating them isn't a reason to keep them, The articles appeal to those in Australia but that's it, Anyway all non notable so thus I say Delete. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  23:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. See no reason they should be deleted. LordFixit (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However, the articles do need to be improved and articles created for each station. LordFixit (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No reason these pages need to exist. --Heyitsstevo (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "It doesn't need to exist" is an argument to avoid. Why does it not need to exist? What policy-based argument supports your position? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever the result of this discussion, this information could work well as a Wikibook - essentially a reference work. However, I don't think it's appropriate for a Wikipedia article: it's mostly a collection of data, so I !vote delete. --Slashme (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2014 (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.