Barnens adventskalender: Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio , Television ,  and Sweden .  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 20:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The first installment in what would become a fairly important tradition in Swedish Christmas celebrations.  As the radio advent calendar has been an annual tradition since 1957, I don't think it's a good idea to summarize each year in the main article.  These are individual works, the content varying from year to year.  / Julle ( talk ) 02:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable precursor to the current calendar, more sources are available.  Notability is not at issue here.  If you feel that merging this as a "backgound" section makes more sense I suggest you withdraw this nomination and propose a merger on the talk page per our usual procedures.  Cheers.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 09:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Reflecting on this, it may be a better move to do that, given we would want to save the content.  Allan Nonymous ( talk ) 21:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One thing to think about is that Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar is mainly a list of the individual annual programs.  There were more than 60 annual editions of this show, and for the most part, each of them has their own Wikipedia page.  It's probably possible to merge all of them together into the core page (or create a long "list of programs" page) but it's a bigger undertaking than just merging this first program into the series page.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 21:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And for that reason among others I would probably ! vote-oppose should a merger be proposed.  I'm just being a stickler on procedure here :P Draken Bowser ( talk ) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I really think it works best as a separate article, to be honest, with the Sveriges Radio's Christmas Calendar as an article about the phenomenon rather than as a collection of the individual instances which make up the tradition.  / Julle ( talk ) 00:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : "Barely qualifies as notable" is not a thing.  If there's enough coverage to satisfy GNG, then it's notable.  This nomination should provide some analysis of the existing sources in the article.  Toughpigs ( talk ) 17:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Toughpigs and Julle.  This is a separate work from the yearly tradition itself and 'barely notable' is still notable.  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 07:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per coverage.  Per WP:GNG.  Personally I find this nomination weird.  BabbaQ ( talk ) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Barely notable still is notable.  Killarnee ( talk ) 14:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep procedurally.  If a merger is the ultimate goal, then AfD is the wrong place for it.  Bearian ( talk ) 16:25, 30 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: speedy keep