Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Grimshaw (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 merge to Nick Grimshaw. Tone 17:25, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Grimshaw (radio show)

[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)

Completely unsourced article, with some vaguely but not blatantly advertorial undertones, about an eponymous radio show with no strong claim of standalone notability as a separate topic from its host. As always, if a radio show doesn't really have a name per se, but rather its "name" is just the name of the person who hosts it because it's fundamentally just "dude who hosts standard daypart" rather than "actual thing that exists in its own right independently of dude and would continue to exist even if dude got fired or died", then the show doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about the show to properly support that it actually has independent notability as a separate topic from the host. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Nick Grimshaw. That the show has apparently not even premiered yet is hard evidence against notability (is it September 3rd in the UK yet?): any coverage would be merely routine announcements and verification of existence. If this program wins major awards, or attracts significant non-routine coverage, or other evidence of why it should be in an encyclopedia, then perhaps a separate article might be warranted. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge. Not worth a standalone article. Szzuk (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2018 (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.