Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian television series


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Italian television series

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Duplicate of the category system. No added value. Wikipedia is not a directory. gidonb (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Keep Could be converted into a tabled list with year, channel and cast info. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Keep The list is currently subpar, but that's not a reason for deletion. It can be improved and look like lists similar in scope but more polished, eg. List of American television programs. Dege31 (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 21:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. gidonb (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep You can't delete a list simply because you prefer categories. The rules are quite clear on that.  See WP:CLN.  Nothing wrong with this or the many other such articles listed in Template:WorldTV.   D r e a m Focus  03:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The question is not what I prefer. My question in this article for discussion is about the added value of the list next to the categories if it also contains nothing but titles. Creator suggests that potentially it could contain additional information. Potentially, yes! It's a good argument for deleting. gidonb (talk) 11:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTVALUABLE are invalid reasons to delete an article.  D r e a m Focus  11:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Dream Focus, both do not apply, as I examine the article next to the category. There is no cookie cutter solution to this but this legitimate question is discussed in WP:LISTPURP, among others. gidonb (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, WP:NOTDIRECTORY (in the intro) does apply and is a great argument for deletion. It says so explicitly Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Creator connected right to it, suggesting that potentially the article could contain valuable information. I appreciate that you want this article kept but, for preservation, it could be useful to come up with a positively stated reason other than WP:ILIKEIT and irrelevant comments about the nomination. I, for one, still do not understand why you think this list should be kept. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not an article, it is a list. Kindly read all that is written at WP:LISTPURP.   D r e a m Focus  12:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A list is a specific type of article. Hence lists are nominated in AfDs. I used both concepts interchangeably throughout my comments. This is justified, as lists are articles but articles needn't be lists. gidonb (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit.. This article is nothing but a simple listing and therefore has no right to exist. We have categories (which are NOT articles) for this purpose. The bold, BTW, is in the source! So the list is subpar and in this particular case (i.e. does not apply to all subpar lists) the correctly identified general weakness is also cause for deletion. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You have correctly identified the weakness, but it's a weakness that can be fixed- that is not a cause for deletion. If you have a problem with this type of list, why is only this one singled out? This list does not differ in type from many others, only in quality, which can be improved. Dege31 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a keep argument. gidonb (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The point of that is to not make comparisons to articles that (potentially) shouldn't exist. It does not forbid talking about consensus. I haven't seen a list of this type deleted for the reason you provide. Eg. the similar List of Pakistani television series was kept. So I am asking you to clarify your position. Dege31 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't do feedback loops because past mistakes should not inform future decisions. That said, the Pakistani list is considerably better. The Italian list is little but a copy and paste from the category. Compare to the Austrian list by the same creator. This Austria article was not nominated so I remain cautiously optimistic regarding the outcomes here. In any case, my position was and remains crystal clear. This list is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY #1. gidonb (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Simple listing without context. Open-ended list.List of loosely associated topics.Lurking shadow (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Per valid request on my Talk. No harm in additional input. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed completely with Dr. Blofeld and Dream Focus. I further agree with Dege31 that while the list is subpar it can be improved and more polished. I have to fully disagree with the OP and Lurking shadow.Historyday01 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Though it needs better organizing. Agletarang (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak keep. While the list as it stands now offers little more than Category:Italian television series, it can be improved with more context (e.g. years, genres, etc.). WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2022 (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.