Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Time Machine (Radio) et al


 * 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   speedy keep.  MBisanz  talk 18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Time Machine (Radio)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

These are all articles for individual episodes from a radio program. The radio program itself is notable for the awards it has won but none of the episodes themselves deserve an article. The articles are basically mirror images of each other with much of the text copied and pasted between them. The episodes themselves are nonnotable and lack coverage. Most of the content in the articles is about the series itself and there is nothing of note about the episodes themselves; only summaries, trivial information, and casting. Themfromspace (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Besides The Time Machine (Radio), I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * Keep (for all) – A lot of effort and time went into researching the pieces. They give a brief plot – are well referenced and do provide additional information that is not found on the home page of Radio Tales, where I would typically would say merge the pieces into.  However, I believe that would expand the main article to much.  So Keep I say :-). ShoesssS Talk 20:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Have you compared the articles with each other?  They are basically one article that has been copied/pasted with the names of the episodes switched and a different summary written.  As for being 'well referenced', all the articles use mostly the same references (in the same order even).  This hasn't been well thought through at all, its just a copy/paste spree. Themfromspace (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * SO-  I agree the introduction is the same for all the articles, as it should be.  It explains the history of piece!  The plot, the main part of the article, is different and does a more than adequate job in explaining the episode.  Regarding the references, there is nothing wrong in using a 3rd party – reliable- - certifiable and creditable source more than once :-). ShoesssS Talk 23:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All as while there are structural similarities to the articles, as one might expect with episodes in a series, the individual articles are well referenced and the broadcast history, production information, plot summary, and critical reception sections are quite individualized. The deletion criteria sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any valid reason. - Dravecky (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All these are fairly well researched, properly cited (an increasing rarity on Wikipedia these days) reasonably notable radio dramatizations of literary classics which were broadcasted on NPR stations across the U.S. A merge into NPR Playhouse might be appropriate if there weren't so many articles, but there are.  These articles could stand to either be categorized into a NPR Playhouse category or a see also section add to NPR Playhouse with links to these articles.--Rtphokie (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All As the creator of these pages, I thought I should weigh in on the discussion. In considering whether to create these pages, I used the individual episode pages for "The Twilight Zone" as a guide to my efforts.  Those pages struck me as well thought-out, objective presentations of relevant data as it pertained to the individual episodes of a series. I did my best to provide specific references for the information I presented.  Since the programs from the "Radio Tales" series are all based on existing works of literature and mythology, I thought that providing synopses and specific broadcast information regarding each episode was particularly relevant and worthwhile, since adaptations of such works can become footnotes in the history of the works themselves.  I thought that it was in the best spirit of this encyclopedia to provide a record of these broadcasts, the individuals involved, the various media in which the programs have appeared, and the specific ways in which the literature was adapted - for the purpose of aiding the literature or mythology scholar in his or her investigation of the cultural influence of the work in question.--  Soundout (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep all The main article is stated to be notable and the sub-articles are obviously a matter of merger rather than deletion.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Spinning out presentations and adaptations of significant literary works in a highly acclaimed series stretches WP:notability very little, if at all, so ignore it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:22, 16 September 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.


 * Keep all but.... The articles are well written and well sourced so I think it is ok to keep them. On the other hand, all they all sound like disguised advertisements for AudioVille where they are selling recording of the radio shows. Some articles have up to 3 links to AudioVille, which is far too much, and all of them have at leat one link. So I would say - keep the articles but delete all the links to AudioVille. If you look at film or videogame articles, you will not find Amazon or eBay links to buy the DVD, so there should not be a link to buy the radio shows either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1979 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)