Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Time 100 Greatest TV Shows


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 00:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All-Time 100 Greatest TV Shows and related Listcruft

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Do we really need a copied list from a magazine (although I do read it)? Its all subjective and based on a specific person's POV. Delete, also delete related. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I made the article because I saw that nearly identical articles pertaining to Time's listing of the 100 best movies or albums had been accepted (or have existed for a while without any objections raised). There are also articles (see Category:Lists of television series) covering TV Guide's listings of the best TV shows. Since all of these articles haven't been deleted, I don't understand why this one has suddenly been nominated for deletion. I think all the articles should stay, both Time and TV Guide are very respectable and well-known publications.Onrswan (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Read WP:OTHERSTUFF please. Picked this one off new page patrol. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The other stuff is good stuff, and this can be also, though we should have some discussion about whether other sources accept these critics as an authority. Not the authority, for the absolute final true list of greatest, but a leading authority as in other fields.DGG (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have other similar lists, such as AFI's_100_Years..._100_Movies, and not everybody has access to the magazine. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One of the big difference's is that AFI's list was turned into a TV special.  TJ   Spyke   15:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep These lists were published by a major magazine which invalidates any argument that it is the result of a specific individuals POV.  Practically every article in any magazine or newspaper is the primary product of one individual.  The purpose of the editorial staff of such publications is to ensure that any articles meet their quality standards.  Barring any retraction by the publication these articles are official for the publication. Raitchison (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As noted above, the lists were compiled by Time magazine, with is undisputed as a major news source. However the articles nominated should have the following done: 1. They should be retitled by adding (Time Magazine) to the titles; otherwise the titles would give the impression of OR. 2. The articles should have their introductions expanded to give more context relating to the lists in question. Otherwise, I don't see a problem. 23skidoo (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete the lot. Absent a group of reliable sources that discuss the mechanisms of getting on and the importance of being on this list, there isn't anything we can say about the list itself. Reproducing the complete list, as these articles do today, is a copyright violation.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Does what it says on the tin, although you could do with putting "Time" in the title per 23skidoo. Ryan 4314   (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft and probably copyright violations. - fchd (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as 23skidoois says, putting "Time" in the title should happen but the articles should be deleted on notability grounds. There is no indication that these lists are notable. There is no coverage independent of Time. Also Wikipedia is not a mere collection of source material. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. If shown to be notable the articles should talk about the lists, not reproduce them whole. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I hate listcruft, and without listing examples here, precedent has been long set on WP for inclusion of such lists.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The most recent(?) discussion on a magazine published list ended delete, Articles for deletion/Greatest Movie Performances. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The list articles fail to address the notability of the lists in question. The lists have been printed by its creator (making Time a primary source). To be notable, it must have been covered in a non-trivial fasion by reliable, secondary sources, independent of the matter at hand. Thus, the topic fails WP:N. Arsenikk (talk)  21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: other lists similar to this have been deleted previously for copyright violations. There is no indication within the list on what makes these films notable. WP:NOTREPOSITORY. JamesBurns (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: The lists are significant.  A quick Google search  reveals numerous people talking about and linking to the lists.  I have rewritten the movie one to better reflect its significance (i.e. that it was complied by two well-respected critics and had generated a lot of interest) and have added a methodology section (which can be expanded).  Anyone so inclined can do likewise to the other lists.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, at this point the other three articles are merely lists and need to be fixed. However, they CAN be fixed and should be IMPROVED rather than deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Time is a significant source of info for numerous websites, including wikipedia. I recommend writing about the article itself and not what it stands for. Elm-39 (talk) 14:00, 12 December 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.