Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ABS-CBN channels and stations


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of ABS-CBN channels and stations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia articles are not Directories, directory entries or a electronic program guide Hu12 (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - you should also delete this page or this page if you want to delete this article. This is really unfair for those networks that aren't based in the United States. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Selective application of Wikipedia policy. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also fails Lists "However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space"--Hu12 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You better nominate the articles mentioned by Danngarcia. If those articles exist, then no reason to delete this one. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Those probably need to be nominated also. The fact that they haven't does not mean Wikipedia is obligation to have this article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominate those first, and if those get deleted, I'll even nominate this for a speedy. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uhhhhh no that's not how wikipedia works. If you think those should be deleted then go nominate them. THe fact that they exist doesn't affect this article. please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is deleted, I'd nominate those American lists for deletion. Now if those U.S. lists are kept, I'll list this Philippine list at WP:DRV. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Though long lists of redlinks with nothing else are not appropriate, this article has additional information which I believe makes it somewhat encyclopedic. References are needed, of course, but probably not deletion. — Satori Son 15:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Danngarcia. It's American-centric to allow a list of the NBC and CBS affiliate articles to exist, but not this one. And, no, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not acceptable as a comeback in this case, as far as I'm concerned. 23skidoo (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is WP:ALLORNOTHING. The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article.--Hu12 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. An example of systemic bias.  If this list is deleted, we'll nominate the American counterpart for deletion as well under the same argument.  Starczamora (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel this is a "us" vs "them" thing, I recommend that you honestly re-examine your motivations. Are you here to contribute and make the project good? Or is your goal really to find fault and get your personal views across? Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. You obviously perceive your biases as neutral.--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Starczamora, please feel free to AfD nominate any article you think should be deleted. Even though I do not think this article should be deleted, I find your comment irrelevant and wholly unhelpful. Policy-based discussion is good, WP:POINTy threats are not. — Satori Son 21:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't this a POINTy nomination too? The nominator nominated and edited only Philippine media articles. At least he could've sprinkled in other articles from other countries too. For the record, I want this article deleted as long as all articles from other nations are also deleted. See a similar deletion discussion: Philippine Presidents by longevity, deleted -> overturned at DRV vs. United States Presidents by longevity, no consensus. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you should assume good faith. I don't even know what country Hu12 is from, and I don't care. Second, whatever you think of this nomination, it does not give license to other editors to make inappropriate comments on how they intend to retaliate if they don't get their way. This isn't elementary school. Let's all try to stick to a mature, respectful debate based on policy and thoughtful analysis. Thanks. — Satori Son 12:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, the nomination is biased on a particular country without considering other countries with the same articles. If there was a blanket nomination on all similar lists, regardless of what country, then THAT'S the true essence of assuming good faith. Starczamora (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll rest my case. It seems consensus is to keep anyway (unless a deluge of deletes come in the coming days), so to continue this discussion would be a waste of Wikipedia's money. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Flawed and inapropriate Non-policy based arguments of regional and ethnic affiliation attacks do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy for which this was nominated. WP:NOT and WP:LISTS.--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Half-truth: WP:LISTS isn't a policy. -- Howard  the   Duck  03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see the difference between this and keeping daily ratings for tv shows. And yes the other mentioned articles should also be deleted. Be bold and do so if you wishharlock_jds (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.   --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments on the GMA discussion and Articles_for_deletion/List_of_DirecTV_channels. This is just regional bias. ViperSnake151 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per ViperSnake151. --Jojit (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:NOT does not apply here.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:26, 11 February 2008 (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.