Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lengths of superhero 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 No conesnsus. Cbrown1023 talk 04:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Lengths of superhero film and television series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * also nominating Lengths of science fiction movie and television series (second nomination)
 * Delete - I know some folks don't care for the use of the word "cruft" in discussing articles to delete, bu this is cruft. A list of various superhero franchises by how long, if all filmed components of the franchise were run start to finish, it would last. Thoroughly unencyclopedic, and any bits of data that might actually be useful (like the number of episodes in a series) should be included in the articles on the series themselves. Otto4711 00:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - 'Cruft' is not a wikipedia policy, nor is the fact that a single editor finds the information useless a reason to delete. Certain readers may well find it interesting and informative to compare the depth of several canons. (After all, why is number of episodes so clearly more useful? Long 1 hour per episode series cannot be compared to a series consisting of 10 minute shorts. From internet downloading to buying dvds, and given multi-episode arcs, episode number has little meaning after original broadcast, whereas total length does.) The info is verifiable, and besides, has passed AfD before (see first nom on the scifi listing). Nothing has changed to warrant reopening that decision.--Fangz 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The nomination for the scifi one is mis-linked on that article. This afd should also be merged with the other similar one (Articles_for_deletion/Lengths_of_fantasy_film_and_television_series), since the issues involved are the same. --Fangz 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Last I checked, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, the critera for inclusion in this list is vague to the point of uselessness.  -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question — is this referring to both articles, or only one? Also, how are the criteria vague?  Category:Superhero films, Category:Science fiction films and Category:Science fiction television series are clear enough.  I'm not sure why there's not a category for superhero television series, but there could be one.  How is that vague? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 02:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (to this and all the other people quoting WP:NOT) — it's worth noting that these articles fit into none of the categories mentioned in the list at WP:NOT. Therefore those who claim it is "indiscriminate" have a somewhat higher burden of proof. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - The Point of the list is to show time, which is practically useless for any research or knowledge such that it is WP:NOT violation as indiscriminate collection of information. There is no point to listing like this since there is no real notibility in lengths. Doesnt fit with WP:FICT or other rules because it is indiscriminate. Also put up with this article these two: Lengths of fantasy film and television series Lengths of science fiction film and television series.--Dacium 02:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment — for an example of lengths of science fiction series being considered notable, see this BBC News article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate listcruft. MER-C 03:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - textbook case of indiscriminate information, which Wikipedia is not. Resolute 04:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment above re: use of WP:NOT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Nominator neglected to tag Lengths of science fiction film and television series. Bad form. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. These lists are not indiscriminate: they can be used to verify claims about "the longest-running science-fiction series" and the like.  (This matter is of sufficient significance and notability for BBC News to report on it.)  As I said the last time this was nominated for deletion, these articles are almanac-style lists, neither more or less encyclopedic than the vast majority of 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. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete (W)hol(e)y pointless listmaking Batman! WP:NOT pretty much makes "Wikipedia is not for listing the running times of a small number of films and TV shows for no particular reason" a foregone conclusion. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment above re: use of WP:NOT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Consider my comment a pre-emptive response to yours. 2. Your BBC article is not an independent reliable source, it was issued by the same corporation that produces the television programme in question, while it backs up the factual content of the article it goes no way to assert its notability. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * BBC News is completely independent from BBC Drama, and is, I believe, forbidden by its Charter from giving its own programmes preferential treatment in news coverage. But if you're worried that they're a biased source, the matter was also covered at the Guardian. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason is given for deletion. Valid almanac data. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is indeed information of the same kind found in an Almanac, and which can even make the news from time to time. Now that said, I do think these lists should be expanded, and cover more series, but I also think List of longest running U.S. television series would benefit from some organization like this page as well.  I also must continue to express my concern with nominations using the term "cruft" .  If you can't articulate a problem with an article better than that, maybe you should reconsider your nomination.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment When did Wikipedia become an almanac? -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  06:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's not, but it includes almanac data. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is a reference work! It has encyclopedia articles (prose) and almanac articles (charts and tables). So I guess it became an almanac when the first list was compiled. Its also a gazetteer. Both are useful. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There has already been an afd on this article. The result was keep.  It doesn't seem like there are any new arguments that would merit reopening the issue.  Makgraf 06:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep To reiterate my point from the last time this was nominated and kept: "I have twice seen this article used as a reference on other websites, meaning people are finding it useful. It is an accurate, up-to-date, almanac-style list." --Arctic Gnome 06:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information without coverage in independant sources.  The BBC article mentioned several times above talks about Doctor Who as the "longest running" such series, but they are not talking about cumulative run time.  See List of longest running U.S. television series for how "longest running" is used in the industry context.  Also, the original AFD primarily addressed the topic of WP:OR rather than WP:NOT.  Although, for the record, I am not convinced the correct outcome was reached on the OR issue either; not only was much of the support in the form of WP:ILIKEIT, but many movies and television episodes exist in multiple versions with different runtimes (this is especially true of the original Star Trek series and any movie with a Director's Cut version).  How do we determine which are canonical for these lists?  Serpent&#39;s Choice 07:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As further comment, there doesn't seem to be any real criteria for what material is counted toward these "total running lengths". While the disinclusion of Corman's 1994 ashcan Fantastic Four is perhaps justifiable, the Superman listing is missing substantial material, including any of the animated material (the 17 Fleischer cartoons, the 68 New Adventures of Superman, the 1988 series or the 1996 series) as well as the 1948 and 1950 serials or the first theatrical feature.  As further evidence of the difficulties involved with actually computing running time, that first theatrical release was re-cut as the pilot for the first TV series, which is counted.  Should the movie be counted separately?  The Batman material suffers from similar arbitrary standards of inclusion (missing, for example, the Hanna-Barbera live-action specials, the 1943 and 1949 serials and several animated runs). Serpent&#39;s Choice 11:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a problem with those sections, which you should either rectify yourself, or bring up on the talk page. As deletion arguments go though, it's not convincing.  If there is reliable information as to different lenghts, or other series, then include all of that information with the proper annotations.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * However, this isn't something that I can fix by editing. The problem is that I can see no way to come up with a total runtime number without resorting to original research.  So many of these sources exist in versions with different lengths, that an effort to list all the possible totals would itself approach article length for some of these franchises.  Let's look at Superman.  Superman and the Mole Men had a 58 minute runtime.  It was recut and retitled into two 26 minute TV episodes.  Do we count 58 minutes, 52 minutes, or 110 minutes?  The 1978 film had a 143 minute theatrical release, a 188 minute International Edit, a 182 minute ABC television broadcast, a 151 minute DVD cut, and a 127 minute VHS/Laserdisk compressed version.  Then there is Superman II.  Do we add 127 minutes for the original release, 151 minutes for the television premiere, 144 for the ABC recut of the television premiere, 116 minutes for the 2006 official studio recut, or some combination of those values.  Now our total -- from just three movies! -- might be 295, 301, 306, 311, 312, 317, 319, 322, 323, 325, 328, 329, 330, 336, 339, 345, 346, 347, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 360, 361, 362, 364, 367, 369, 373, 377, 378, 380, 381, 384, 385, 388, 390, 391, 397, 404, 405, 408, 412, 414, 419, 425, 436, 442, 443, 449, or more if we count the Donner cut as a separate movie from the Lester film.  When we add the 68 6-minute New Adventures of Superman, do we just add 408 minutes?.  They were not broadcast as standalone programs.  36 of them bookended The Adventures of Superboy short in the New Adventures of Superman program, while the rest were broadcast along with non-Superman material in The Superman/Aquaman Hour of Adventure and The Batman/Superman Hour.  Does the entire runtime of these programs count?  If not, do the Superboy shorts from the first season count as Superman content anyway?  What about material that includes Superman alongside other characters?  Super Friends?  Nearly every franchise has this problem.  Without a means to reconcile it, I cannot envision a way to assemble these articles in compliance with WP policy.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fixable to me. I would include either the longest length or the length of the most widely available version, or the original version, or all three, depending on the circumstances. If I was unsure, I'd bring it up on the talk page, or just include it all with the proper annotations.  You do not, however, total two presentations of the same material just with different cuts.  It should only be included once in the total, even if you can get different totals depending on what cuts you use to create the sum.  The same with your questions about the Superman animated material.  If you're not sure it should be included, bring it up on the talk page, get the consensus of other editors as to the proper presentation of the information.  To me, your arguments make for a good reason to present this information in the fullest and most complete manner possible, not a reason for deletion.  Sure, you can get different numbers, but you can get different numbers talking about casualties of war, or the costs of natural disasters.  Or even the census.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I felt I should add that your concerns are also going to apply to the articles of the material in question anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that articles on movies/tv shows should include run time information.  This is information that's included on the box of the movie/television show.  Yet there will be problems like you mention in the article itself.  Thus your concern also applies there, and since it will have be resolved for those articles, I don't see it as a particular problem for this article either.  Might be difficult at times, depending on the circumstances, but it can be done.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom/otto and WP:NOT -- where does this silliness end? /Blaxthos 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, its updated, don't see why its cruft. Terence Ong 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per the last AFD. I see this list as useful and not crufty. CheekyMonkey 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Its already survived one AFD, thats plenty good enough for me....can we move on now please? Jcuk 11:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Serpent's choice. The BBC article is talking about the number of episodes, not total running time. The point about director's cuts and special editions is also well taken.--Nydas (Talk) 11:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both this s a bit silly, but it is verifiable data of at least minimal interest.-- danntm T C 14:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the last AfD was primarily about WP:OR. This doesn't appear qualify under WP:NOT.  This is an indiscriminate collection of information, all of which should just be included on the individual movie pages. JCO312 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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 21:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete facts <> knowledge. This is facts. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not really a place for this and if it were to be kept it would need some cleanup.  Telly   addict  18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see why the film lengths aren't in the individual articles (if not already). this is simply a silly article to have on wikipedia.--Tainter 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In some cases, no article exists for the film or television series — generally, articles exist for individual films or television shows, not for franchises. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per cruft, and no articles link to this one except the other "lengths" lists. HalJor 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (but not because of "NOT"  As mentioned by others above, WP:NOT would not apply to this article. It refers only to specific classes of information that have already received consensus among editors to discriminate against inclusion. Statistical lists, however, are not currently included under that section of policy.
 * Now, that being said, I do have some concerns about the list possibly having arbitrary inclusion criteria, since it says it includes "popular" shows and films. It seems likely that there are numerous other shows that should be included, but aren't (eg where are all the Spiderman shows? Flash?).  Not to mention that I'm not sure why the list is focussed narrowly on superheroes to begin with.  Why superheros and not "sci-fi/fantasy"?
 * I'm also concerned about upkeep of this list. It seems to me this information is only useful if it can be kept current.  But the current list is only as of May 26, 2006.  So it appears that noone is updating the list, and even if someone does update it that's no guarantee editors will keep updating it over and over regularly every week (as would be necessary to keep the information accurate.
 * So even if you assume the information might be useful, it looks like the list has somewhat arbitrary rules for inclusion, is oddly framed as just a list for superheros, and can only be kept useful by constant, regular editorial updates. Sounds to me like a recipe for problems - I unfortunately recommend deletion. Dugwiki 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While I certainly agree with your conclusion, I disagree strongly with your assertion that WP:NOT only applies to those things which are specifically named at the policy. Otto4711 22:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Dugwiki's comment about updating applies only to the "superhero" list; the science fiction list, which is bundled with this delete request, is regularly updated.
 * Also, if certain series have been omitted that is an argument for improving the article, not for deleting it. I don't think that the series you mention have been deliberately excluded — I just don't think anyone's gotten around to adding them.  Last time I looked, incompleteness wasn't a deletion criterion.
 * Incidentally, the superhero and fantasy lists were spun out from the science fiction one when that became unwieldy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to reply to Josiah and Otto -
 * Otto, sorry we aren't seeing eye to eye since, if I recall correctly, we usually go the same way on afd/cfd. Guess we can't agree all the time, eh? Either way, feel free to post your comments on the WP:NOT talk page where there are a couple of discussion threads on the topic of just how broadly to interpret WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. I've made similar arguments there that I did here, and it is an interesting policy topic in general beyond just this article.
 * Josiah, normally I'd agree that it's better to improve an article than delete it. However, my concern is that this particular type of article is only useful if it is intentionally and regularly updated. "Incompleteness" isn't a deletion criterion, but articles and categories do get deleted on occasion if they are determined to be too difficult to properly maintain or their information is determined to be inaccurate or misleading.  In this case, the list in question hasn't been kept properly up to date, having sat for a year with no updates at all.  I'd be more inclined to recommend Keep if I felt comfortable that the article could maintain its information in a timely and more complete fashion. Dugwiki 22:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to put it one more way, if I thought the maintainence problem was short term and could be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, I'd be ok with the article. But my concern is that the lack of maintainence is due to a long term, systemic problem with the list that probably can't or won't be corrected. But hey, if someone can prove me wrong, go for it! Dugwiki 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, Lengths of science fiction movie and television series has been regularly updated. The fact that the superhero list hasn't been would therefore seem to be more a question of whether there are wikipedians with the interest and inclination than an intrinsic problem with this type of list.  If regular updating is the concern, the superhero list should be deleted and the science fiction one kept. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with the delete votes above, and I also agree that just because WP:NOT doesn't specifically say "not for lists of television shows based on length" doesn't mean we can't cite the premise of WP:NOT to include this list, which is nothing more than trivial almanac data (although highly, highly unuseful, despite assertions above).- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 00:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "unuseful" is something that varies from individual to individual. For example, I would never use List of National Basketball Association career steals leaders, so to me it's unuseful.  But I recognize that there are many people who would find it useful.  The same goes for these lists — just because you don't find them useful doesn't mean that they are universally "unuseful". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. JuJube 01:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Serpent's Choice derided "keep" arguments in the previous AfD as being WP:ILIKEIT — for consistency's sake, it should be noted that this (and a few other "votes" in this discussion) are prime examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Josiah Rowe, we all appreciate that you are taking this AfD seriously, but it is not always helpful to respond to every single person who disagrees with you. You can make your point eloquently and concisely once and not have to post a comment under every delete vote.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 04:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. per WP:N and WP:V. 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 03:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll 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 science fiction film and television franchises (and, perhaps, List of long-running superhero 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) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * One last thought, and then I'll try to shut up: It's not quite a reliable source, but here's an example of someone citing the "lengths of science fiction series" list as an example of what's great about Wikipedia, and someone else links to the article here in a discussion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Firstly, "cruft" is not a reason for deletion, (see WP:ILIKEIT). Secondly, it is notable series, and all the facts are patently verifiable. This also falls under the "information" purpose of lists.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for two reasons: 1) Notability of show's running times has not been demonstrated by referencing "multiple, non-trivial 3rd-party reliable sources". One BBC and one Guardian source do not make a strong claim, not-to-mention the ambiguity of "longest running" as mentioned by an editor further up this page. That the Wikipedia article itself has been mentioned elsewhere is a self-refernce and is not evidence of notability in the Wikipedia sense. 2) User:Serpent's Choice's frankly bloody fantastic and well-considered argument above illustrates exactly why these sorts of lists will forever have problems bordering on original research which can NEVER reasonably be fixed.  Zun aid  ©  ®  13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Josiah Rowe. -Toptomcat 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful reference, although incomplete and using a fairly arbitrary definition of what tou be included. Should get a Fixup tag and have some editor discussion to firm up the scope of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep, per Josiah Rowe. The Wookieepedian 20:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is totally indescriminate; these facts should be in the relevant articles for each series, if at all. Salad Days 22:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I still believe this could be a useful collection of information, and it's not, properly speaking, an "indiscriminate" collection. It does require cleanup.  It's true that the facts can be found in various other articles, but I think there may be some value to collecting them in a single place for ease of comparison.  That value admittedly seems rather limited to me (hence "weak" keep), but that's just me.  Serpent's Choice presents the best argument for deletion, but I feel the key points could be addressed through consensus among the list maintainers -- in fact, by defining precisely what is included and how, they'll also be making the article less "indiscriminate."  I doubt I'd shed many tears if it were deleted, but it seems worth a shot, considering. Shimeru 10:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is hardly crufty at all, useful list, not indiscriminate, certainly has a place on Wikipedia (Not paper!) - too valuable to delete. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete.  While a list of longest running insert-genre-here may have some worth, I think this in particular is too narrow a genre to offer a valuable or notable comparison.  It's been around since May and there's still only five canons mentioned. Tiakalla 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTE: this would appear to be a !vote to delete Lengths of superhero film and television series but not Lengths of science fiction film and television series, which is bundled into this AfD entry. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an important article Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:07, 2 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.