Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GMA Network affiliate 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 00:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of GMA Network affiliate 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) 13:08, 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 on United States. -Danngarcia (talk) 14:09, 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, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic."--Hu12 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you nominating the lists mentioned by Danngarcia above? That'll be a better convention in which all similar "List of Foo affiliate stations" can follow. -- Howard  the   Duck  14:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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) 15:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominate those first, and if those get deleted, I'll even nominate this for a speedy. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To suggest that you would speedy delete vote this article if someone deletes those first is improper and questionable at the least.--Hu12 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? If other stuff exists, then if those stuff are gone this one should be gone too. -- Howard  the   Duck  15:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ALLORNOTHING. The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, not convincing. It's an essay. Show me the policy. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep. This nomination glares of systemic bias. We'll nominate the list of affiliate stations in the United States for deletion and we'll see how they react. Sheez... Starczamora (talk) 20:08, 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) 20:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! I'll throw back WP:AGF to you as well. As I've said, the nomination reeks of systemic bias. It's funny that I am accused of bias when you don't see that what you nominating for deletion reflects its American counterpart. Who's biased now? Starczamora (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is weird, the television systems in this country are very similar to the ones in America. You know, the whole "affiliated stations with local programming to serve each market" idea instead of just only local news and such. If this is the consensus, you'd have to delete everything else on the same rationale. But the point is, this is clearly NOT a program guide, or a directory. It is a LIST. Also, it does not violate WP:LIST, which states that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." In addition, it is NOT a program guide, and it is like this just because we're trying to keep all of GMA's media properties in one basket. This is like having a page for all media outlets owned by News Corporation. ViperSnake151 02:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per ViperSnake151. --Jojit (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's an academic treatment of the subject, and not a directory.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:41, 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.