Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Back Benches episodes


 * 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. Since no sources can apparently be located for this list, there is consensus to delete it. Keep comments are mostly per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Should such sources become available, any editor may ask for the article to be draftified to do so. Black Kite (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Back Benches episodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely unsourced, incomplete and every single episode unlikely to satisfy WP:EPISODE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP Why is this different than the thousands of other episode list articles? Too long to fit in the main article so a justifiable spinoff article.   D r e a m Focus  04:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTSFORAREASON would be a good essay to have. If thousands of articles exist just to show the episodes of notable shows, then maybe they are suppose to exist and you shouldn't waste people's time with this.   D r e a m Focus  18:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't waste peoples times with such poor reasoning to support an inclusionist agenda. I've already explained why the list should be deleted. It is unsourced, lacks notability and is incomplete and is borderline FANCRUFT. What standard of Wikipedia are we trying to upkeep? Television episodes are not inherently notably, and that also extends to lists of episodes. And just because some stuff exists is NOT a reason why other stuff should. Ajf773 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, article does need to be cited however. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -- article should be improved with sourcing, as noted, but episode lists as forks for notable shows are widely accepted. The fact that the list is currently incomplete is irrelevant for its deletion argument. matt91486 (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EPISODE: While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page. Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory. This does not meet the criteria. Sources have not been located (and I have attempted to find them) for both the episode dates and the context. The notability of the television show itself is also questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The show is notable enough to be in the national library of New Zealand. Anyway, it shows summaries of what each episode is about, the issues discussed, and other information, it not just an empty list.  Educational programming doesn't get the coverage that celebrity gossip and mainstream entertainment media gets of course so we're not flooded with references, nor are they needed.  You can confirm any information on their official website, or the credits of the episodes.  Primary sources are fine when there is no possible reason to doubt them.   D r e a m Focus  02:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The link doesn't do anything to help the episode list article. There is NO official website for the show as well, considering it was not broadcasted on one of the main freeview channels. Ajf773 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Information in their national library and in the credits of the show. It was broadcast on TVNZ 7. What do you mean "main" channel? Its number 7 in the listing so it isn't buried among a lot of other channels and hard to find.   D r e a m Focus  02:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For someone who may not be familiar with New Zealand free-to-air broadcasting TVNZ7 is a now defunct station that used to broadcast reruns or locally made programmes that were too low budget for the premier channels (TVNZ1, TVNZ2 and Three network). My reasons also echo the recently deleted Shortland Street nomination. Although this is a completely independent AfD to that one, Shortland Street is a long running prime-time soap spanning over 27 years. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep if sources can be found to support it, delete if they can't. Episode lists can be kept if they're supported by reliable sources, but we do not have any policy that every television show that exists is always entitled to have a standalone episode list separate from the main article about the show: keeping or deleting an episode list still depends on how sourceable it is or isn't, not just on the show's existence. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And so far, no sources have been found. Just so everyone is aware Back Benches is not the same show as Back Benchers. Ajf773 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The episodes cite themselves, and judging by the talk page, it appears that the major editor did actually watch them. However, the lead is in need of references. It also seems like this list is extremely outdated given that the show was cancelled in 2017? While there are enough episodes to warrant a separate list article, I think it should be merged with the main page unless the list is expanded and references in the lead (or elsewhere) are added, as there wouldn't be any establishment of notability in my opinion. Heartfox (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The entire point of references is the ability to actually consult said references if you need to verify what they said, and/or are seeking out additional information. So we can't just decree that television episodes "cite themselves": we still need to cite the information to sources that people can obtain in order to read or watch. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete in its current state. While notability issues are mitigated by being a spinoff, and TV is an acceptable primary source for itself, we cannot carry articles that are entirely without references to reliable secondary sources.  Sandstein   07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up and sources added. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat and Sandstein. While it is fairly common practice on Wikipedia for TV shows to have an episode lists as a spin-out article, the information on those episode lists still needs to have sources.  It is against Wikipedia policy to retain content that cannot be referenced to reliable sources.  The fact that, after over two weeks in AFD, not a single reliable source has been found or added makes me doubt that sources exist, and without them, this list can not be retained.  Rorshacma (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete in current state, keep if sources are found per and others above. I agree with  in that if sources haven't been found yet, they may not exist.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.