Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows


 * 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. --Core desat  05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional television shows

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - thoroughly indiscriminate list, collecting everything from shows which play a significant role in another show to one-off parodies to throwaway references to shows that never actually appear on-screen. Otto4711 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm not a big fan of such lists, but this one actually has some potential for usefulness. Needs to be organized, maybe improve upon the introduction, but it looks OK to me. 23skidoo 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Jcuk 17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No reasoning? Guess not. Axem Titanium 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It is interesting. TonyTheTiger 18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your logic for keeping does not follow, per WP:ILIKEIT. Axem Titanium 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no need for the deletion of these lists. I find them useful for reference and I'm always looking for things to add to them. Sure, some may just be a passing reference by title, but some people do search for them. Tartan 23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If people are actually searching by fictional show title, which is preferable: to be taken to a list of thousands of other shows or to be taken to an article either about the show (if it's notable) or to the source material? Otto4711 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally I would like the option of all. We shouldn't have to choose. Tartan 23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Reasonable list, fictional television shows, if you see a problem with the current criteria, suggest a more limited one if you feel it is appropriate. That may be a sustainable argument.  However, that doesn't mean deletion, just clean-up.  Since I see the value of having such a collated list (especially when most of the entries do not deserve an article of their own), I say keep.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep well-organizaed and acceptable scope.-- danntm T C 03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, thoroughly unencyclopedic and nonnotable topic, completely WP:NOT. Axem Titanium 05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep another fictional list nomination and discussion citing non-existent WP:NOT criteria, or misapplying the "indiscriminate" guideline, none of the points of which apply here. Scope and discrimination of list seems perfectly acceptable to me, also seems pretty well-organised and annotated where appropriate. --Canley 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding only to the idea that "none of the points" of WP:NOT apply here...the points noted at WP:NOT are nt exhaustive and nothing in the document indicates that they are intended to be. Is "collection of every non-existent TV show ever mentioned in passing in some other medium" one of the listed points? No. Does that mean that the policy precludes such a collection from being considered an indiscriminate collection of information? Of course not. As I noted in another of these, List of all Americans who own cats isn't prohibited by the letter of the policy. Do you think such a list wouldn't get deleted as indiscriminate and unmaintainable? Otto4711 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Straw man argument. See Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies. --Canley 12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Not a straw man argument at all. You're misunderstanding WP:FICT. Otto4711 13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Straw cat argument then. So, would you agree that WP:NOT is an incomplete guideline, which can or may never satisfy any objective standard for completeness? --Canley 14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure as to what you think quoting that portion of WP:NOT does toward supporting your case. WP:FICT advises to use lists for minor items within a work of fiction. It does not suggest using one list to try to capture every single example of something fictional regardless of its importance to the work from which it's derived. WP:NOT instructs that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. If there were a List of fictional television shows from X then that would be a reasonable, focused list in line with WP:FICT and, most likely, a discriminated list in line with WP:NOT. A list of fictional television programs drawn from every source which includes such a program regardless of whether that program plays some actual roles within the real show or whether the program is merely mentioned in a line of dialog in a single episode, never to be heard of again, does not conform to WP:FICT or WP:NOT. Otto4711 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, to clarify, I'm not saying that WP:NOT supports my case - I'm saying that WP:NOT doesn't support your case either. And in the lack of policy on the matter, all we're left with is your opinion, my opinion and the community's opinion, which is looking more and more like it wants to keep these lists. --Canley 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But there isn't an absence of policy. WP:NOT is policy and it prohibits indiscriminate lists by virtue of prohibiting indiscriminate collections of information. There is certainly a difference of opinion as to whether this list is indiscriminate which, frankly, I don't get because of the tremendously wide net the list casts in capturing material, but trying to consense on whether the list is indiscriminate or not is not the same thing as the policy's not applying. WP:FICT is a guideline for lists of fictional things and it counsels against lists across multiple source materials. Otto4711 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry to keep harping on about this, and I promise I'm not being deliberately obtuse or obstructive here, but where does WP:FICT counsel against lists from multiple source materials? I've read and re-read it and I can see nothing that even remotely backs up that assertion. I'll happily admit I'm wrong about this if you can point out the line or section you're referring to (I assume you don't mean the discussion page). I see what you mean about WP:NOT, but, perhaps unfortunately, policy is formed by consensus, and there is no consensus otherwise there would be an explicit reference to lists. As I said, we'll have to rely on the community's judgement on a case-by-case basis - decisions I'll be happy to accept. --Canley 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in WP:FICT is the notion of creating lists across works supported. Every example is presented in terms of items within a work of fiction. The broadest capture that WP:FICT endorses is within works set within the same fictional universe (such as Horses of Middle-earth) "Counsels against" may be a bit on the strong side but not by much. But even setting aside WP:FICT I still contend that the plain language of WP:NOT is more than enough to delete a list which seeks to capture every fictional television show from every medium with no regard to the importance of those shows either in the fictional universe it's from or outside it. Just because there is not a specific entry in WP:NOT that talks about lists does not mean that WP:NOT does not justify this and other similar deletions. I honestly do not understand how someone can look at this list and think that it isn't indiscriminate. I don't get how someone can legitimately look at this list of however many hundred or thousand entries it is, gathering everything from The Alan Brady Show which was actually integral to its source program to something like Admiral Baby from The Simpsons which was a two-sentence joke in a series that's generated hundreds of hours of content, and think that it's useful for research or encyclopedic or discriminating. Usually when a debate about something like this gets contentious I can still see some merit in the argument of the other side but here I can't. Otto4711 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good list, not indescriminate. AndyJones 14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This, like many other lists in this group of nominations are good  for both browsing & research. A reason for deletion is not: I'll never use it.DGG 19:00, 16 January 2007 (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.