Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Rome (TV series)


 * 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. (Non admin closure). — Qst 19:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of Rome (TV series)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks notability, excessive and seems unnecessary. This single two season show has more articles than shows spanning 7-8 seasons! This should be covered, at best, in the individual episode articles or the main article. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.   jj137  ( Talk ) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep You can't compare shows by number of seasons. "Heat Vision And Jack" didn't even have one! It's a very notable show; it was a flagship HBO dramatic series. A lot of (weird, OCD) effort went into this page, and it seems valuable.  --- tqbf  04:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's encyclopedic to compare the timelines of a notable series and actual history; this is just a specific way to do so. JJL (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Not that the tremendous amount of work this article was to create is a reason to keep it, but given it is a general overview of the complete series, I think it's worth keeping. Per the above 2 comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJL - the length a show runs is a petty argument. As tqbf noted, it was a flagship show - not just HBO but also BBC and RAI. The article shows two parallel timelines in a very good visual way. A friend of mine actually pointed me to this, knowing that I saw the original run but he just discovered it on NetFlix - not the only one I am sure. &mdash; RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib 15:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Comparing the show to actual history is a subject that deserves coverage, but I think it could do with a renaming to indicate this is the case. - Mgm|(talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (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.