Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lengths of science fiction film and television series (3rd nomination)


 * 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 to delete. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  16:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lengths of science fiction film and television series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - third nomination for this list. First nomination closed keep and the second closed no consensus. It should be noted that many of the !votes to keep the article in the second AFD were based solely on the article having survived the first AFD. This ignores the actual arguments offered in the AFD and also ignores the fact that consensus can change. The arguments against the article as presented in the second AFD, especially the arguments offered by Serpent's Choice, continue IMHO to be much stronger than those offered in favor of keeping. With re-releases, director's cuts, newly-released deleted scenes and the like the running time of a number of these projects is open to debate. Much was made in the last AFD of a BBC article about the running time of Doctor Who, however, that reflects a misreading of the article. The BBC was talking about what show had been on the air longest with the most number of episodes, not what series, if all the material was run one after the other, would take the longest to get through. Note that two similar articles, Lengths of fantasy film series and Lengths of superhero film and television series, have been deleted for just these sorts of concerns. Otto4711 12:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - For the same reason as the last two times: it is a list that people are finding useful. All the information in it can be found in other sources, such as imdb.  The only thing that might be called original research is the math done to get the final number.  If we can't do simple math equations, then we aren't allowed to calculate how long someone lived given their birth and death dates.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not someone finds the list useful is not only not a strong argument for keeping, but the utility of the article is not offered as a reason for deletion. Otto4711 15:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is that "the running time of a number of these projects is open to debate". Well that came up on the talk page and the community came to a consensus of how to list both originals, directors cuts, remakes, and whatnot.  The list has largely stabilized on those issues.  Problem solved.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not the only issue that has been raised with the article. Otto4711 15:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But it's the main issue you mention in your nomination: you emphasized Serpent's Choice's arguments about films with edits of different lengths. This has been addressed.  As for the BBC article, the list includes the information about number of episodes and years on air: "longest running" can be determined in three different ways, and all are included in the list.  Compare List of tallest buildings and structures in the world. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as keep, per the results of the AFD from this February. "Consensus can change", like "indiscriminate collection of information," are the new ways to say "I don't like it", it seems.  I don't see that anything has changed significantly since last month, and the fact that you consider a delete opinion to be eloquently argued is not grounds to ignore prior results or to repetitively nominate the same article for deletion until the "correct" result obtains. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, "consensus can change" has nothing to do with "I don't like it" and your suggesting that I'm arguing IDLI by pointing out that people can change their minds borders on an accusation of bad faith. Secondly, what's changed is that of the three similar "lengths of" articles, consensus on two of them has changed against such articles and "consensus" on this article changed from "keep" to "no consensus." It is not at all unreasonable, in the face of two of three articles of a kind being deleted and the third closed with no consensus, for discussion to continue on the third. Finally, if I were trying to ignore prior results it's pretty unlikely that I would've talked about the previous results extensively in this nomination, don't you think? Let's try to make this about the nomination and not the nominator, OK? Otto4711 16:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as the subject is arbitrary, the definitions are ill-defined and the article fails the "who gives a shit" test. Mr. Berry 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This page does a lot better on the "who gives a shit" test than most pages. Clicking on the Random Article button yields an article on an important subject maybe 1 in 10 times.  This page at least has some amount of widespread appeal.  --130.15.161.187 18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "who gives a shit" test, otherwise known as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT an indescriminate collection of information. Clearly someone put a lot of time into compiling this odd assortment of trivia, yet it is by no means encyclopedic content. How in the hell did this survive two AfD noms? AmiDaniel (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOT. Also is original research because it states at the start of the article "This list shows the total running lengths of popular science fiction television and film series.". What defines popular? Previous AfD nominations aside consensus can change, this list may be useful but that doesn't mean that it belongs here, there are plenty of useful but unencyclopedic deleted from Wikipedia every day because of WP:NOT, it may have "appeal" to many people (myself included, I find it interesting) but that does not mean it should be here. Xarr 18:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The offending word "popular" has been removed. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Then the list needs to be updated to include every science fiction film and television series and then this still fails WP:NOT. The information contained in the list would be far better merged into the articles for each film and series. It is clear by this discussion that the information is valid and deserves a place in Wikipedia but this is not the place for it, the main articles for each film and series would be bettered if they included this information. Xarr 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the list is incomplete, that's an argument to put incomplete or expand on the list, not an argument to delete it. And it's not indiscriminate at all: "science fiction series" and "total running lengths" are clearly defined, and you yourself acknowledge that their intersection is of encyclopedic value.  So how does this fail WP:NOT? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep — it's only been a few months since the last AfD debate for this article. Sure, consensus can change, but there's no point in forcing people to make the same arguments every few months.  That said, the article is not indiscriminate — it's relevant almanac-style information which is neither more nor less encyclopedic than anything in Category:Sports-related lists; it's just as encyclopedic as List of Hail Marys in American football or List of Indianapolis 500 winning starting positions.  (Note that this is not an argument by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but a pointer to an entire category of lists which have exactly the same justification for existence as this one.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're saying this article should exist because there's a whole category full of similar articles. Which is not compelling because anyone can write an article on anything and it will stay here until it's deleted. That's the essence of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And frankly, having looked at the Indy 500 list if it came up for deletion I'd !vote against it as meaningless data and the only reason I wouldn't vote against the Hail Mary list is because the extreme rarity of the play being successful makes it somewhat notable. There is nothing, on the other hand, notable about a TV show having a running time and the biggest piece of evidence you cited in supporting the article last time, the BBC article, doesn't support your argument at all. Otto4711 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The BBC article was about what the longest-running science fiction series is. That can be determined in several ways: by years on the air, by number of episodes, or by total running time.  All three are addressed in this list.  Would it help your concerns if the list were reorganized into a list by number of seasons, like List of longest running U.S. television series?  —22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comment — the superhero and fantasy lists were deleted in part because they were not being regularly updated, and because some editors felt the genres were ill-defined. Science fiction on television and in film is a well-defined genre, and this list is regularly updated.  Thus, the deletions of the fantasy and superhero lists should not necessarily be taken as precedent.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but it is simply not true that lack of updating was a major concern in the deletion of either article. Only one editor mentioned it and no one else !voted to delete per that editor's comment. Otto4711 22:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was one of the two comments that applied to the superhero list and not to the science-fiction one. Since the admin who closed the debate decided that the superhero list had a "delete" consensus and the science-fiction list had no consensus, those two comments seem important. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as keep as per above. The nominator mentioned Serpent's Choices argument as why another AfD was necessary.  He said: "the original AFD primarily addressed the topic of WP:OR rather than WP:NOT."  I'll repeat what I said in the last AfD: "Actually the last AfD brought up WP:NOT and people calling it (in exactly the same words) an "indiscriminate collection of information". And the consensus has been to keep. Nothing has changed in the meantime." Makgraf 19:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, consensus did move from "keep" to "no consensus" so that argument is a bit on the faulty side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs)
 * My argument is not on the faulty side, unless you misread it (as I think you did). I said "I'll repeat what I said in the last AfD"  I am referring to the article changing between the 1st AfD and the 2nd.  The 1st AfD did cover WP:NOT yet an argument saying it didn't was favourably cited in the 3rd AfD opening. Makgraf 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment to all saying "speedy keep" - Speedy keep does not apply unless you are suggesting that my nomination is vandalism. Otto4711 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep So long as an article does not blatantly fail an aspect of WP:POLICY, it should be considered in a positive way. And when it is informative and useful, as this one is, it should be kept unless there are wholly compelling reasons for erasure. Which I think there are not.--Anthony.bradbury 20:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or disruption. It's not vandalism, but an argument could be made that repeating an AfD nomination so soon after the previous one closed is disruptive. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An argument could be made that making veiled accusations is disruption and uncivil... Otto4711 22:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that disruption is an acceptable reason for speedy keep, and this could be viewed as disruptive. No veiling intended. Otto, I'm sure that your intentions are good, but it would have been more civil to wait a few more months before renominating this for AfD.  You probably didn't intend to be disruptive, but the effect is one of disruption.  Hence my speedy keep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How nice of you to acknowledge that I "probably" didn't mean to be disruptive. As there is no requirement that any length of time be allowed to pass between AFDs, the notion that there is any incivility in this nomination is crap. Otto4711 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That is your interpretation.  Personally, I consider just about all nominations claiming that articles are "indiscriminate" or "trivial" to be far too subjective to justify erasing anyone's work, at least where (as here) the article shows signs of skill and care.  These labels are unhelpful, and lead to unnecessary friction, which is perhaps what you are finding out now.  I merely pointed out that a nomination that closed in February was too recent to make a convincing case that "consensus had changed."  - Smerdis of Tlön 03:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Except of course that consensus did change on one of the articles in that time. And as far as "indiscriminate" rubbing you the wrong way, considering that WP:NOT is Wikipedia policy, voting against AFDs solely because they mention that policy strikes me as demonstrating a lack of consideration of the actual nomination. Otto4711 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as disruptive nomination, would support a block to stop any more disruption. The article is still very useful. Wikipedia is still not paper and it meets WP:LIST. Matthew 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is still not paper" is still not a get out of jail free card for articles. Otto4711 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm undecided as to the merits of the article, but I have no choice but to vote keep since this AFD is coming too soon after the previous one. 23skidoo 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The new AFD for the superhero list came a week before this one and somehow that wasn't too early for it to be deleted. There is no policy or guideline requiring any set timeframe between AFDs. If the best reason for wanting to keep an article is "it was nominated before kind of recently" than maybe you should judge the article on its merits instead of the timeframe. Otto4711 00:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the best reason for wanting to keep it. We've given you many, many reasons why it should be kept based on its merits, but you ignored all of them and renominated it anyway.  --24.235.229.208 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I addressed the reasons offered, and explained why I found them wanting. My comment was addressed specifically to 23skidoo in response to his claim that he had no choice in his vote based solely on timeframe. Otto4711 06:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. The total running times of these various films/series has no significance at all. About as pointless as Lengths of science fiction novels by number of pages. Croxley 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Completely significant collection of valid information, and I'd honestly not mind this list being expanded to cover a wider variety of film and television series. I wouldn't even mind a comparable version for book series if somebody wanted to develop it.  This is valid information which would certainly be included in the pages on the various series in question (or are you saying that say, Star Trek shouldn't mention how many episodes are in each version?  This is merely a collation of information that will be elsewhere on Wikipedia.  Why that's so objectionable, I don't know.  BTW, try to be civil folks, all of you, both pro and con.  I see some bitter words, and those are possibly a good reason to close this nomination and wait a few months instead.    FrozenPurpleCube 05:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or if not, then transwiki to Wikibooks; it would be a shame to lose all this carefully compiled information. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This should either include EVERY science fiction TV series and movie, or not exsist at all. The general rule of thumb that I try t use is "would this list pass a FLC?" I would vote No to this list in any form, and I think it is also a violation of WP:NOT. The Placebo Effect 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So any list that is not featured status should be deleted? That makes for many, many thousands of overdue AFDs.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to say IS, but "could this list be improved to FL status?" That is what I ment. I'm sorry if it was interpreted otherwise. The Placebo Effect 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this list should include more tv series and movies. Incompleteness is not a reason to delete, and this could be completed with enough work.  This is really no different than having a list of playstation games, or chess openings, or olympic medal winners.  It may not be finished today, but then, neither is Wikipedia.  I've got a book with several dozen television series listed by length.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Overkill. In reference to FrozenPurpleCube (above), we wouldn't have a list of 'time it takes to play each playstation game to its conclusion'!, would we? The globetrotter 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is reference material which is what you find in a site like thisJackillsfrm 22:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. One thing I think the article is missing is enough justification for its existence.  The BBC article on Dr. Who is certainly evidence that length of running time is notable, and I think should be cited (perhaps from the introduction) to help establish that the topic is one that is of interest.  Other similar evidence would be good to add: in other words, I'd like to see just a little more text, supported by citations where possible, talking about the significance of the list in the eyes of fans (and the networks too, presumably).  With that, "keep" seems the right answer: deleting the article would lose information that's clearly encyclopaedic (in the sense that it's the sort of thing one would go to an encyclopaedia to find out) and which is notable in that it's been the subject of at least one media report, and more are likely to be found.  Mike Christie (talk) 11:58, 2 April 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.