The result was keep. There is a consensus here that most, if not all, of these are notable and there is certainly no way I as closer can determine any particular articles which should be merged (I see no support for deletion). If people think a particular article should be merged then they can start a discussion elsewhere, but consensus here is that a bulk merge of all the articles is not required. Davewild ( talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Merge all, with any recoverable information pushed to List of ABC radio stations, and all turned into redirects. All but three ( 1, 2, 3) of these stations contain either no references ( example), or a single primary source reference to ABC online ( example). Of the three that don't, they each contain a single reference. Many contain show schedules ( example), violating WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. There's just not enough verifiable content to sustain these articles as anything other than stubs or even microstubs. The list article is considerably more appropriate, and should be fleshed out with what information can be recovered. Any station developed well enough to spin off can be recreated at a later date. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Whoa there... I'll take it upon myself to make some improvements to 774 ABC Melbourne (anyone else is welcome to help too, of course), but I would like a target standard to aim for. Where can I look to see examples of or guidelines on what a great radio station page should look like? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Looky here... OK, I invite eyes to 774 ABC Melbourne. I have removed the program guide, tidied up a lot, and added references. If anyone dares to suggest that the article is still appropriate for deletion, I would would argue that they have rocks in their head. Suggestions, corrections and new contributions are, as always, totally welcome. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. There is a consensus here that most, if not all, of these are notable and there is certainly no way I as closer can determine any particular articles which should be merged (I see no support for deletion). If people think a particular article should be merged then they can start a discussion elsewhere, but consensus here is that a bulk merge of all the articles is not required. Davewild ( talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Merge all, with any recoverable information pushed to List of ABC radio stations, and all turned into redirects. All but three ( 1, 2, 3) of these stations contain either no references ( example), or a single primary source reference to ABC online ( example). Of the three that don't, they each contain a single reference. Many contain show schedules ( example), violating WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE. There's just not enough verifiable content to sustain these articles as anything other than stubs or even microstubs. The list article is considerably more appropriate, and should be fleshed out with what information can be recovered. Any station developed well enough to spin off can be recreated at a later date. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Whoa there... I'll take it upon myself to make some improvements to 774 ABC Melbourne (anyone else is welcome to help too, of course), but I would like a target standard to aim for. Where can I look to see examples of or guidelines on what a great radio station page should look like? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
Looky here... OK, I invite eyes to 774 ABC Melbourne. I have removed the program guide, tidied up a lot, and added references. If anyone dares to suggest that the article is still appropriate for deletion, I would would argue that they have rocks in their head. Suggestions, corrections and new contributions are, as always, totally welcome. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC) reply