Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lengths of fantasy film and television 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 DELETE. TigerShark 12:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lengths of fantasy film and television series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - see also the nominations for the equivalent superhero and science fiction runing time lengths. Thoroughly unencyclopedic cruft consisting of how long various franchises, if run start to finish, would last. Otto4711 00:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment- what noms are you referring to? Could you please give one example?-- Ed  ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 03:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my bad for assuming that people would access this nom through the AfD page rather than the article page. See this concurrent nomination of two additional "length of" list articles. Otto4711 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Either way, the article provides information only about the length of a television show. The topic itself is not notable, and could probably be considered a directory. Delete  Ed  ¿Cómo estás? Reviews? 03:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain how you see this as indiscriminate? It isn't in any of the categories listed at WP:NOT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to meet a specific point. It's still an indiscriminate collection of information. It's trivial and probably original research as well. MER-C 05:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not original research — the information is derived from IMDb and tv.com. Lengths of science fiction film and television series has links for each series pointing to the relevant IMDb page (although the citation process stalled out a while back, the citations can be added).  Similar citations could be added for this page.  The fact that the citations are currently lacking is an argument for article improvement, not deletion. Please see the previous AfD nomination for the science fiction series article, in which OR claims were made and rejected. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is original research to the extent of gathering the times and adding them together. Regardless of whether it's OR or not, the information is still indiscriminate and trivial and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research is defined at WP:NOR as "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." " Addition of times advances no position, nor does it create a novel narrative or historical interpretation.  There's a world of difference between a crackpot scientific theory (which was what WP:NOR was created to exclude) and simple addition of times. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per MER-C Resolute 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — notable and not indiscriminate almanac-style list. See my argument at the related AfD for superhero and science fiction franchises. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason is given for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per others above /Blaxthos 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft. Terence Ong 10:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Jcuk 11:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons discussed in sibling Articles for deletion/Lengths of superhero film and television series, namely that this runs afoul of WP:NOT, that selection between differing versions of television broadcasts and movies renders runtime determinations original research and that inclusion of works within series (or, especially here, within "canon" status) is arbitrarily defined (and thus also OR). A more elaborate discussion has take place at the other linked AFD.  For all practical purposes, this article should be conisdered bundled with the other two.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 12:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Canon status" is determined by consensus discussion on the articles' talk pages. Many franchises have made official statements on what is and isn't canonical; the articles reflect those statements. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it's verifiable and at least of minimal interest.-- danntm T C 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete facts <> knowledge. This is facts. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete again like the above article, a waste of space, facts could be included in the film articles. --Tainter 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (but not because of WP:NOT) As I mentioned in the related afd, WP:NOT does not cover this type of statistical list article. So I am discounting those arguments.  However, I do have concerns about upkeep, since this list requires constant upkeep to be useful and accurate.  Given that the list hasn't been updated in almost a year, I'm skeptical it will be updated as consistently as it needs to be.  I'm also concerned about the list's arbitrary inclusion criteria.  How do you decide which shows to include and which not to include? It seems like this list is particularly small and probably missing a number of fantasy shows. So with a seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria and a problem with ongoing upkeep of accurate information, I'm reluctantly recommending deletion. Dugwiki 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with the same reasoning given in the previous AfD above.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per WP:N and WP:V. Just as in the companion AfD above, no evidence has been provided that the lengths of these films has any notability. Without evidence that the subject of this article has notability, this article must be deleted. Absolutely no independent sources of any kind have been produced showing media coverage or scholarly publication specifically on the subject of this article, the lengths of these films. The policy has nothing to do with whether we think it's appropriate or not or whether we like it or not. Notability as shown by sources is a must. Delete. --Shirahadasha 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm going to try to stop responding to every posting, but I just thought of an alternative to deletion; the article could be moved to something like List of long-running fantasy film and television franchises, with the content restricted and focus altered accordingly. This would make the articles more analogous to List of longest running U.S. television series, which I take it is uncontroversial. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my reasoning in the above AfD. Notability of the subject has not been demonstrated by citing mentions in multiple non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources. User:Shirahadasha above puts it quite eloquently.  Zun aid  ©  ®  13:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per my opinion in the above AfD. Shimeru 10:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Popular" is not defined, making the list completely unmaintainable. ShadowHalo 10:28, 3 February 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.