Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a list of radio stations that air the show "Coast to Coast AM". It's incomplete and I wonder how long even a complete list can remain accurate. There's a complete and much more detailed list that can be found at the radio show's webite. Honestly, besides practical issues, I simply don't see the use of having these kind of articles. I think this a good example of where we should apply the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy (WP:NOT). Peephole (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I agree with nominator; this is nothing more than a directory. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "this content is available elsewhere" is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to delete Wikipedia content — if we applied that kind of rationale, every single thing on Wikipedia would be deletable. Secondly, the nominator previously tried to have this speedied on the false pretense that it constituted a copyright violation (as if a simple list of radio call signs could possibly be copyrightable.) Thirdly, it was a CFD discussion that listified this from a miscreated category in the first place. And fourthly, being a directory would entail including radio stations' mailing addresses, phone numbers, staff lists, etc., not just listing them — there's no policy that prevents or prohibits simply listing radio stations by geographic or programming associations. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for assuming good faith, I put the list up for speedy deletion because I honestly thought it might have been a copyright violation. I was reading some talk pages and other people had that same concern. And in fact, the admin who reviewed the speedy deletion agreed with me and deleted the article. Now, you disagreed and I've read some other comments on talk page that make me think you're probably right. Still, I don't think a list of radio stations that air a radio show should get its own article. Maybe I should have been more clear, but one of the things WP:NOT says, wikipedia isn't, is an "electronic program guide". And this is in fact a sort of a reverse electronic program guide. Instead of listing all the radio shows for one radio station, we list all the radio stations for one radio show. Can I ask you a question, do you think every single radio and TV show should get a list of all the TV and radio stations that air it? Would you think it'd be appropriate if we made lists like "list of tv stations airing Lost" or "list of radio stations airing Rush Limbaugh"? Also, the reason I said, "this content is available elsewhere" was to make clear that the article wasn't of much practical use either and that the world could do without it.--Peephole (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete a very clear example of a list that is totally redundant and superfluous to the category; category:Coast to Coast AM. ¨¨ victor   falk  08:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't superfluous or redundant to that category, because the category isn't for radio stations. There was a separate subcategory for radio affiliates, but CFD explicitly established a consensus to replace that category with this list. And even if a category were permitted, categories and lists don't duplicate each other, per WP:CLN, because they organize and present the information in different ways. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as excessively narrow list; a category would be fine. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OCAT, a category is not fine; radio stations are not categorized by individual syndicated programs that they carry because that would lead to extreme category bloat. CFD has a standing rule that any category of that type gets replaced by a list of this type. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — per Bearcat; this is a perfectly legitimate "See also" link from the main Coast to Coast AM article. Mlaffs (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems encylopedic to have a list of real-life information that could be useful. Category is not appropriate as some affiliates do not have articles (and don't warrant them). A radio program listing the stations that air it would be fine on the article on the programm, hence should also be fine as a seperate article if space considerations make that needed. List also allows extra info to be added, which might be useful in the future, Yobmod (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful list created after previous discussion, categorizing by show is strongly deprecated, and how can a list of one kind of thing be "excessively narrow"? This list organizes data in a way no category can or should, allows listings for stations that do not or will not have independent articles, and while there is room for improvement in the list that's never a reason to call for its deletion (especially not twice in one day). - Dravecky (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Bearcat and Dravecky. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • February 4, 2009 @ 21:48
 * Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft.  Ikip (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list is not redundant to Category:Coast to Coast AM, as that category does not contain radio station articles, nor should it. A category for this is not fine per WP:OCAT. It's bad enough that people ignore WP:CLN in using the existence of categories as a reason to delete lists. But when the argument is used when the category was specifically deleted per a CFD discussion, which was clearly pointed out in the very first "keep" argument, it is very difficult to assume good faith. I also agree that this is not a "directory" in the sense that WP:NOT was meant to prohibit. DHowell (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per editors above. The above Acronym soup sounds impressive, until editors actually read those sections, WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply, this list is not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", neither does WP:NOTGUIDE. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As I said above, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not just about "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", it also clearly states Wikipedia isn't meant to be an "electronic program guide". Same question for all who think we should keep this: "do you think we should make these kinds of lists for every radio and TV show?" --Peephole (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2009 (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.