Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all U.S. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX 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. The list benefitted from improvements made near the end of the discussion. As modified I didn't see the list as violating WP:NOTDIR, and otherwise there really wasn't a violation of WP:LIST. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

List of all U.S. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX affiliates

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

We already have articles for List of NBC television affiliates (by U.S. state), List of ABC television affiliates (by U.S. state), List of CBS affiliates, and List of Fox television affiliates (by U.S. state). There is no need to have another article combining the four. The grouping is not really necessary either, while the companies are similar, there is no reason to group them together into one article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as well-meaning but unnecessary. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Keep and rename to List of all U.S. major network affiliates or similar.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but this isn't and indiscriminate collection.  It also brings something to the table not provided by the lists above, specifically a one stop article on all of the major network affiliates, which is encyclopedic and worthwhile. Cool3 (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This list would be duplicative to the 4 already existing lists. Based on the size of those four, the "one stop article" would violate WP:SIZE, the same reason we do not have a List of all companies one stop article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much information that is perfectly fine within the current form of separate network articles. Duplicative of the network articles and unneeded.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment What? No CW affiliates?  No PBS?  Actually, I can see the need and the use for a concise table that would have the information side by side so that, if we wanted to know all of the local stations for a particular market, one wouldn't have to go shopping at List of NBC affilliates, List of ABC affilliates, List of CBS affilliates, etc.   That said, this particular list is not an improvement over the let's-go-shopping approach --- one can note the stations that serve Birmingham on a single line without writing BirminghamAlabamaBirminghamAlabamaBirminghamAlabamaBirminghamAlabama down an entire column. Mandsford (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A one stop list would violate size guidelines. (Also, this shouldn't have been posted before it was complete to begin with. Work on stuff in your userspace to make it the best you can before putting it in mainspace) - Mgm|(talk) 22:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfection is not required on a first draft. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: unnecessary content duplication/fork. JamesBurns (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It's just as well that this got nominated before the author got too far down the road. A comparative table could be created in a manner that wouldn't be excessively large -- it doesn't take much imagination to see how to do this efficiently --  but not in this form.  However, a table listing all networks would not "replace" any of the existing lists.  There is a seldom-used feature on Wikipedia called "Articles for creation", and anyone interested might try there.  Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have the separate lists, and a combination would create a mega-list. No need for it. Just delete. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 19:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject is better served by the individual network articles (which already exist) and this grouping eliminates other, smaller broadcast networks whicj mey also have their articles. Eauhomme (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It list things that have their own wikipedia articles already. Thus I believe it meets the requirements for what a list should be.  It is quite helpful if you are looking for stations.  Just needs to have more things added to it, of course.  A good start though.   D r e a m Focus  04:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 09:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Duplication of other lists, plus where do we stop? Lets just expand it to list every single licensed affiliated television station. We have individual market templates if you want to see all affiliates for a given market.User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 12:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete When completed it would be nothing more than an indiscriminate directory listing.  Them From  Space  14:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; at least its better than List of some U.S. NBC, ABC, CBS, and FOX affiliates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and improve A list like this would be very useful and would complement the other lists, not be duplicative. It needs a lot of work, though. This also does not come under any Wikipedia-policy-based definition of "indiscriminate" or "directory". DHowell (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've refactored it to a more concise format, and have added some major cities. Further improvements, besides completing the list, could be to add PBS and perhaps CW affiliates, and rename to List of U.S. major network affiliates; and perhaps add a population served or number of households served column for sorting as well. DHowell (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I note that the article was created with an underconstruction tag, which says "Please consider not tagging with a deletion tag unless the page has not been edited in several days or the page has no content at all." It would have been common courtesy to heed this request, rather than nominating for deletion just four minutes after creation. DHowell (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was not the current content of the article that I found unnecessary, it was the existence of such an unneeded article in the first place. It does not matter how much work it received, the whole article premise is why I nominated it for deletion. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unneeded" is just your personal opinion, though, and not based in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, correct? For a contrary opinion, the editor below said on my talk page that this revised list is "the most useful article yet about American TV stations." Perhaps I should thank you, however, for prompting me to start work on something that I had planning to create for months but never got around to. :) DHowell (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, we have different opinions, and I am glad you took to improving the article. If Wikipedia was dictated by just my views, it would certainly be a boring place, that's why deletion debates are so useful. :) Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article as revised based on DHowell's revisions. This is a sortable table that conveys a great deal of information in whichever fashion the user prefers.  Although the other lists, which are about 15KB apiece, remain useful, this one does the work of the others with less space overall.  I hope that the admin will relist this one, since this is a different article than what was originally nominated.  Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 18 March 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.