Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Greatest Hits 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. If you wish to pursue a Merge with another article, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Greatest Hits Radio[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NLIST. No WP:IS WP:RS showing this has been discussed as a group and list serves no CLN purpose. Unneeded CFORK of main article, which already contains an appropriate history.

The sourced entries here appear to be in Greatest Hits Radio so there is nothing to merge, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 11:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am unsure as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. It currently has 69 references, almost all of the from independent sources, and contains significant information which is not included in the station's history.Rillington (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most valid policy reason to keep a content fork such as this is WP:DIFFORK. In my opinion there are arguments for and against this being an acceptable DIFFORK. —siro χ o 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, History, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, this duplicates information that already exists in the Greatest Hits Radio article for apparently no reason. Flip Format (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio station timelines include information such as station presenter changes which can only be collated within a station timeline. Therefore, this timeline provides information which is not contained within the station's article. Rillington (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greatest Hits Radio. Timelines can be useful, but I don't see a strong need for this to be separate from the main article. This is borderline as a WP:DIFFORK, but almost certainly should not be deleted outright. —siroχo 17:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is the equivalent of deleting as all the information contained would be lost, and here it would mean that significant levels of information contained within in it, and not available elsewhere, would disappear.Rillington (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greatest Hits Radio. There are timelines for many things but they have to meet GNG too for getting their own article. CharlesWain (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see the need to delete this article, nor to merge. It feels like change/an action for the sake of it. It was this particular article that I first came across and learnt about the history of Greatest Hits Radio, not from the main Greatest Hits Radio article itself so from personal experience, I know it does have its place. It is one of the articles that encouraged me to become a more active editor on Wikipedia (not just on this particular article, but on those regarding other topics)

I don't see how it fails NLIST - "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" The group is question is the history/origins, dating back over 30 years, of one of the largest radio networks, in terms of number of stations, geographical spread and audience size, in the UK. If that's not notable, what is?!

Regarding WP:IS/WP:RS, multiple independent and reliable references show that Ofcom has had to make decisions about whether to grant permission to/approve requests from the network over the years. Those decisions will have involved discussion and consultation regarding this group of information both to assess the state of the market/radio industry at that time, and what effects, negative or positive, granting/approving such requests would have on the market and the relevant audiences.

At least 5 different BBC stations have similar "Timeline of..." articles, despite also having History sections in their main articles. I do not object to that, nor has anyone else judging by the complete absence of deletion or merge requests identical to this in the Revision history pages. Why single out this particular Timeline article for deletion or merging?

The only change I'd be willing to support is trimming the History section on the main Greatest Hits Radio article, and maintaining the existing redirection for "Further Information" to this article. People who are primarily visiting the main GHR article for current/up-to-date information about the channel (presenters, radio frequencies/availability on platforms, list of local variations etc) will be able to access that while not having to scroll past as much historical information, but will also be able to easily access the further detail this Timeline article provides. Idontunderstandthesandstormmeme (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well sourced and passes WP:GNG. It's not like Greatest Hits Radio isn't a notable topic. This is Paul (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - Very detailed & well referenced with independent reliable sources. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I personally think it's a little odd to have such a detailed timeline for a radio station; however, it is well-documented with reliable sources so I think it's worth keeping. I particularly object to the votes to merge it into the main article, as I think a timeline of this detail would be ill-suited for the history section of the article. Dan ● ✉ 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.