Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (2nd nomination)


 * 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.   Consensus has not changed since previous AfD; lack of willingness to actually improve article does not in this case mean it should be deleted. Article does need pruning, sourcing, and better direction, however. lifebaka++ 14:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional television shows
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

AfD result from last year was "keep" based solely on "it's useful" and "keep if improved" votes. Well, it hasn't been improved any; it's still unsourced and there are no definite criteria, as evidenced by how LONG the list is. So one episode of Animaniacs used a Jeopardy! spoof. Does that mean we need a list for every fictional TV shows? Are parodies like Numberwang from That Mitchell and Webb Look really "fictional TV shows" or just skits? What about all the fictional titles in Family Guy? Et cetera. I see no usefulness in this list, nor any way to reliably source it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - we have categories for a reason. Wikipedia is not a collection of lists. -- Tawker (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a good example of what categories are for. We don't need lists of this sort, especially without reliable sources. PeterSymonds (talk)  01:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongest Delete Possible- Unscourced, indiscriminate, non-encyclopedic listcruft. Last year's AFD got it badly wrong. Reyk  YO!  01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the talk page, there's an IP who agrees with you there. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 01:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete There is no conceivable way this list could be anything except indiscriminate and lacking. The scope is just too broad. RayAYang (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete The previous close was faulty and completely out of order. My guess is that it would have been overturned at DRV. I'd say that, depending on the channel, up to 95% of the fare is fictional, so this list is really quite pointless. And a show-in-show? Wow! It would impart no great encyclopaedic value. I would strongly urge for its deletion, lest we be plagued with articles such as List of television documentaries,  List of reality TV shows, List of news programs, etc, instead of relying on categorisation. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WHOCARES (in the whole 'this is too much useless information' sense rather than the 'I don't care' reasoning). Keep the fake show titles within individual article prose. TV is parodied on TV. It's a fact. But it doesn't mean we have to list every fake TV show ever.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.  Black  ngold29   04:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Certain shows, like the Simpsons have media pages within, but for others this is necessary. Merge the sub-categories into their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.46.131 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2008
 * 'Strong Delete This is a mostly unreferenced unencyclopedic content. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ultimately, this is a list of jokes, isn't it? It's no different than a list of insults or a list of fictional towns that might be found in the dialogue of a TV show.  Yes, it's an interesting list, and I'm saving it to my own computer to enjoy later; and I appreciate the effort that went into compiling it.  However, none of those are reasons to keep, other than the obvious one under WP:MANDSFORD which is that if Mandsford likes it, then words like irregardless apply.  Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Unreferenced, unencyclopedic, and it will be an infinitely growing monster that will no doubt never be complete. Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. This article is annoying to look at. Tavix (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I've made efforts to attempt to upkeep the various "List of fictional..." articles, and it's brutal. Editors constantly add trivial entries mentioned in one episode of some random show.  Any enforceable inclusion criteria (per WP:SAL) make these lists extremely short and uninformative.  I'm in favor of deleting all of these fictional institution articles as I can't see how they truely benefit an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason why this cannot be sourced. -- neon white talk 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No encyclopedic value at all. Eklipse (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The longer the list, the more useful and normally the better. I'd interpret this as meaning notable shows with an article on Wikipedia. If we think they;'re not important enough for a place even on a list then why are we writing articles? The advantage over a category--once again--is that here can be a description for orientation purposes. Wikipedia is difficult to navigate without removing articles like this. Browsing is one good way of using an encyclopedia, and the information given is helpful for this. I would add a column giving the dates. DGG (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Just to confirm, you do understand that this is a list of shows that only exist in various fictional universes right? The fictional shows don't even have a category, because they are not worthy of independent articles.  It's not a list of real shows within the realm of fiction.  Something like that would be perfectly fine as a list (and category).  If, for example, this list contained all the fictional shows within Saturday Night Live (sometimes as many as two or three new ones an episode), not to mention all the other sketch comedy shows, this list would be hundreds of K of worthless information. There is no reasonable criteria for inclusion for this list. -Verdatum (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I found the category, it's Category:Fictional television programming, and it has a mere 18 entries, and even some of those are of questionable notability; a far cry from the hundreds in this article. -Verdatum (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Another randomly assembled, unreferenced list. If it does remain online, at least rename it to designate this is all about U.S. television series. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Exactly the sort of list topic I would hope Wikipedia to include. Discrete, encyclopaedic, clear threshold for inclusion (fictional t.v. shows in notable works), verifiable, and of interest to our readers. Skomorokh  13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Every item can, and probably should, be sourced to the original episode it aired in per WP:CITE. It may be useful to expand the lede to show how these story devices were used and also add dates to the headings and place everything in chronological order. Banj e  b oi   22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Besides the fact that every single item in this list is verifiable and can be sourced to its primary source, the fictional work in which it appears, I am going to invoke ignore all rules for the reason that deleting this article would not improve the encyclopedia, and a dozen or two editors who find this information "useless" or "indiscriminate", or whatever other policy-imitating buzzword that basically translates to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, should not override the consensus of the hundreds of editors who worked on and maintained this article over the last two and a half years. Before someone invokes WP:EFFORT, this is not intended to be an "effort" argument; if just a few people worked for thousands of hours creating this list, that would be an "effort" argument. This is a WP:CONSENSUS argument, and a five-day AfD is a rather poor measure of consensus against what hundreds of good-faith editors have been doing for two and a half years. DHowell (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply- Editors' contributions to an article cannot be accepted as de facto keep votes, and certainly don't demonstrate consensus to keep. An edit to an article does not in any way prove that the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include, it doesn't prove that the editor gave any thought to those policies before making the edit; at best it can be taken as an indication that the editor likes it. I'll also add that the bulk of the keep arguments in this discussion amount to little more than WP:ILIKEIT as well. Reyk  YO!  00:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules is policy, so whether "the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include" is irrelevant; policies were created through consensus, they can be changed by consensus, and they can be ignored by consensus. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules is policy, so we can safely ignore any suggestion that it be followed unless the argument supporting that suggestion is very good (and not "C'mon, guys, keep it because some people like it.") Reconsider your line of argumentation if it is so weak that it cannot even move those who agree with your goals. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, perhaps I didn't need to invoke "ignore all rules" after all, because this inherently verifiable article doesn't violate any; or at least to the extent that it may have problems, they can be addressed through editing rather than deletion. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is formed by strength of argument, not merely by strength of numbers. Merely editing an article presents no argument or reasoning in favour of a Keep decision, any more than a whole bunch of people turning up and going "I like it, I like it, I like it..." Reyk  YO!  01:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is formed by strength of argument" is a nice bit of Wiki-speak, but in the real world "consensus" is not defined that way - consensus is general agreement, or at least agreement not to block or challenge a decision. Strong arguments can of course lead to consensus, and may provide evidence of consensus, but they aren't consensus in and of themselves, as the "strength" of an argument can be highly subjective and dependent on the biases of the participants. Even our own article on consensus fails to mention anything about "strength of argument". Realistically, if fifty editors (not sockpuppets) in an AfD said something equivalent to "Keep, I like it" and one said "Delete, unencylclopedic listcruft that violates WP:NOT", do you really think the article would be deleted, or if it was it wouldn't immediately be brought to DRV? Here is an interesting paper which suggests that attempting to prematurely measure consensus by either numerical strength or by strength of argument is divisive and actually hinders consensus-building. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a comment, I edited this article (and other articles subsequently deleted) and I would be very upset to hear that a deletion discussion presumed my editing an article meant I wanted to keep that article. Protonk (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet my failure to participate in a five-day AfD for an article which I may have edited or find useful presumes that I accept the outcome of that AfD. Presumptions such as this are inherent in using a time-limited poll to determine consensus. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. And there is a lot more basis for making that assumption than for assuming that my editing of an article means I want it kept even if it doesn't meet policies and guidelines.  If you don't take the time to comment on something, we can presume that you don't really have a stake in the outcome.  that's how the consensus process works.  As for the time limits argument, I've heard it before.  5 days is more than enough time for any article that meets the guidelines in even the most marginal fashion to be brought up to standards.  If, in the course of 5 days, the editors who read AfD can't fix the problems in an article (not to mention the people who have the article waitlisted), then it probably won't get fixed.  Even if those 5 days elapse without a possibly worthy article being fixed and it gets deleted, there is no prejudice toward recreation (presuming the new article is substantively different).  time limiting discussions is a fundamental tradeoff for including large numbers of people and dealing with a large workflow.  AfD sees over 100 nominations per day.  Raise the time limit and the backlog associated with the nominations will swell to unmanagable size quickly.  It sucks that we have to make any tradeoffs but some have to be made.  This is one of them. Protonk (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I "didn't take the time to comment" because I was busy with other things during the 5-day window, or I simply don't have the time to participate in every AfD in which I may have a stake in the outcome. But once that 5-day window passed, the bar is raised much higher to restore or recreate a deleted article than if I had managed to catch the discussion when it happened. And five days is not "more than enough time", for example, if sources are difficult to obtain, but common sense suggests that the sources are out there; or if one can easily find hundreds of "trivial mentions" of a subject but hidden within them is a couple of reliable articles with substantial coverage, and finding the diamonds in the rough may take significant time. One thing I've happily noticed recently is that more admins seems to be willing to relist a discussion if consensus doesn't appear to have been reached; this is one helpful improvement to the process. And we could probably reduce the total number of AfD nominations if we had some way of enforcing WP:BEFORE, and encouraging WP:PROD and WP:CSD where appropriate. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this terrible article. This needs a total revamp of scope and form, but an article describing the use of metafiction in television is useful to an encyclopedia, and should be reasonably sourceable. Right now, the scope is overly broad and badly defined, and the article is chock to the gills with crufty one-off jokes and skits, but after burning out the underbrush this will have real potential. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep I basically agree with AMiB here. I also suspect that secondary sourcing exists for at least some of these 'sub-lists'.  there is probably some guidebook or article that covers simpsons fictional television shows (thought probably not exhaustively), same goes for family guy (probably).  This would probably not work well as a category as it would be continually underpopulated. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but wikify further. At first glance, a category would serve this purpose, but not all items which might be included in this list are notable.  I am concerned that this list is too broad (see WP:LIST), but its categories could become separate lists.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete My god this article is a mess!  What are the standards for inclusion?  Where are the references?  How is this notable?  This is an excellent example of why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  The range of the topic is just too broad.  Even if all the shows were verified they have no notable relationship with each other worthy of mention.  Themfromspace (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete too poorly defined subject. Mukadderat (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Previous AfD had a clear and overwhelming consensus to keep. While I understand that consensus can change, we should really only have second nominations when an AfD closed as "no consensus", because once we have an unambiguos keep, then we should focus on improving the article in question.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- If you read the keep arguments from last time, you'll see that all but one of them boil down to WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. I think previous consensus can, and should, be challenged in such cases. Reyk  YO!  20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually consider those weak arguments as editors and donors come here, because they find articles interesting and useful and afterall a reference guide should be useful. With that said, fortunately, this time around policy based reasons have been added as concrerns why we should cover an article such as this one.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do does this mean you're done linking to WP:ATA? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've ever used the WP:ILIKEIT shortcut. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 08:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or read the essay at all, near as I can tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just like various "policy" pages, every time I read the essay it seems to change, especially recently... -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as I am sure there are third party commentaries in film/TV magazines or books somewhere. notable subject, think 'Larry Sanders', Tim's Tool Time, Krusty the Clown's show. etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - We probably can't source them all, but we can find sources for enough of them to pass NOTE. Anyways, we have this list because they aren't all notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 6 August 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.