Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (4th 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. - file lake  shoe  23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

This page violates Wikipedia is not a directory, as it is a list of generally non-notable plot elements where the linking concept Fictional television shows is not notable. Due to the lack of secondary sources covering most of the fictional shows, much of this page constitutes original research. Previous AFD (a year ago) resulted in no consensus either way. Anthem of joy (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The Observer source establishes the notability of the topic and I have just added another good one. The ease with which one can find good sourced content for this indicates that the topic has not yet been given good attention.  It didn't even mention Jack Benny, who appears in numerous sources when one looks for material about the show-within-a-show format.  Our editing policy is to keep weak and neglected articles in mainspace so that they may be further developed. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I will support keeping this if you can produce evidence that good sources exist for the vast majority of these shows. As far as I can see, there are one or two notable ones, and plenty which have received no more attention in reliable third party sources than a single sentence. The Observer article is perhaps a good source if one was to write an article about Fictional television shows, but it can't be used to justify the whole list. --Anthem of joy (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Observation This is a difficult call. I can see why the list would be interesting, informative, and all the other wrong reasons to keep.  It is narrowly defined, and the concept seems to be notable enough.  The current article is a nightmare, and it would seem that if you can't source EACH entry, they shouldn't be there, which would make it virtually a blank page and no longer interesting or useful.  As it is, there is no way for the article to exist unless it is original research.  There are lots of reasons why the article is a bad idea, although they are more of an issue of editing, not criteria.  In short, I'm stuck between deleting an article that I think is notable by subject matter, keeping an article that will have to be almost blank to pass guidelines, or keep an article that is useful but fails every guideline on Wikipedia.  A bitter pill.  Dennis Brown (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * After chewing on the idea for a day, I have to say Keep for the reasons I listed. The current article is riddled with flaws, but the concept itself is notable and valid.  All My Circuits is one of my favorite examples, but there are many others that demonstrate that fictional TV shows can take on a life of their own, and become characters in themselves.  A list of them (although very different than the current mess) seems appropriate.  Dennis Brown (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - IMO, at best we have what should be a brief article about the concept, with a few sourced examples. In any case, the current list is garbage. I'm still looking, but I don't expect much. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and trim as desired. The sources in the article establish notability of the concept, and once that's been satisfied, notability of individual entries does not matter per WP:NNC, such that a primary source for each will adequately meet WP:V.  Having said that, there really ought to be a better way to organize all of this. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting WP:NNC. All NNC means is that the List of fictional ducks does not have to be reproduced entirely in another source to suitable, as long as the overall concept of fictional ducks is notable. It's no excuse for having a list where 90% of the entries are non-notable, which is one of the main problems of this list. If we trimmed it to the notable shows within shows, it would simply better to have an article on Fictional television shows. Per WP:NOTDIR, we don't have listings of non-notable things where the overriding concept is notable. Imagine the List of British Muslims under your criteria. Islam in the United Kingdom is a notable topic, but that doesn't mean that we need a list of every person who can be verified to practise it. --Anthem of joy (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, including every fictional show that has a non-trivial role in notable fiction. Probably the article needs expansion, rather than trimming. The individual fictional shows need only be significant within the fiction, not independently notable. This is the standard criterion for fictional elements included in a list like this. They need not be sufficiently notable as independent fictional elements---that might  be needed perhaps to justify an independent article on each fictional show, but every item of content in a Wikipedia list need not as a general rule be notable--that's the criterion for articles, not individual pieces of  article content.    DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because it is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and not related to human knowledge. The very few references provided within the article do not constitute significant coverage, so the list does not meet the general notability guideline. Merely existing does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There appears to be no criteria for inclusion in the list itself, which lists obscure non-notable fictional television shows with ones that show some notability and that makes it fail the criteria of notability for stand-alone list. There are no sources that show that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This situation makes the list a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. If individual fictional shows are notable on their own, they should have their own article, not serve as an excuse for a list of non-notable fictional TV shows. Jfgslo (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (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.