Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 3ABN programs


 * 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. Kubigula (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

List of 3ABN programs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List of WP:NN programs failing WP:NLIST

See related AFD's: (all closed as delete)
 * Articles for deletion/List of 3ABN Radio programs
 * Articles for deletion/List of Dare to Dream Network programs
 * Articles for deletion/List of SonBeam Channel programs
 * Articles for deletion/List of 3ABN Proclaim! programs
 * Articles for deletion/List of 3ABN Latino programs

Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:Source list also seem to apply. This article fails both. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete List has more redlinks than a barrel of Twizzlers, and none of them will ever get an article. Complete schedule-cruft that nobody asked for.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nomination states that the list fails WP:NLIST, which is impossible, because WP:NLIST is a notability guideline regarding lists of people. This article is comprised of a list of programs, not people. Also, the list is focused and discriminate. I've removed the red links from the article for now. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I see no improvement at all except for removing the redlinks and columnizing the entire article. This is still a long TV Guide for a channel which airs mainly syndicated religious content with a few originals here and there.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some sources were also added to the article prior to the above comment, one primary source to verify the show "It Is Written" and one tertiary source to verify "Generation of Youth for Christ". This may have been overlooked by the user who commented above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge very selectively to the parent article Three Angels Broadcasting Network.  Only 3 of these are notable enough to warrent their own article which is a good clue that the larger list isn't notable enough to warrant a dedicated article.  This can be adequately covered in the parent article. RadioFan (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Nate. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, entries are almost entirely nonnotable, and the titles are an informational dead end rather than encyclopedic information. As it stands now, there are only two listed programs with article links; one is actually about a conference (unclear what relationship, if any, this has to the 3ABN show), and the other is an internationally syndicated program and so not original to 3ABN.  So while Three Angels Broadcasting Network could possibly be expanded, I'm not really seeing anything here worthy of merger.  postdlf (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOT explicitly debars electronic program guides. (This is also - more's the pity - not the first AfD I've commented on this week in which a Keep proponent has based his opposition on deletion grounds he doesn't like, while making no attempt to rebut the others.)   Ravenswing  08:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE policy is explicit on the mater of electronic program guides . Mt king  (edits)  04:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and especially WP:NOTTVGUIDE per Mtking. --Ifnord (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2012 (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.