Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of local children's television series (United States)


 * 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, leaning to Keep; appears to be a fairly stable list, though it needs cleaning up.  BLACK KITE  01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

List of local children's television series (United States)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an overextended and never fully able to be completed, indiscriminate list of redlinks about every remembered local children's television show in the United States. The list serves absolutely no purpose. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė   ♫   ♪  00:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom on the first AFD of 2008 (technically), I think a category would be better for this. ViperSnake151 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * keep Looks like a lot of time was spent on it. It could be useful to someone.KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am sure lots of time was spent on it, but that is exactly the definition of a non-argument on Wikipedia. (see WP:EFFORT).  It might be useful to someone, which is also an excellent non-argument.(see wp:USEFUL) and not valid for discussion in an AFD.  The nom is about being an indescriminate list.  Why not List of local stations with Simpsons reruns?  That has a larger market share.  The problem is the premise is flawed and there is no hope to properly maintain to boot.  Pharmboy (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate, unsourced, and most likely incomplete list. Verifiability may also prove difficult for some shows. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate list. Userify it if someone really wants it, as obviously a fair bit of work has been put in, but really not appropriate for Wikipedia as outlined above.  Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep These are a notable part of television history. I think it can be complete, and possibly already is, as every one I'd ever heard of is mentioned, it actually seems like a quite impressive list. This should be kept to a list of articles that would meet our inclusion standards, and thus it would only include notable programs. Similar to Deaths in 2007 and so on... obviously we don't list all deaths, yet it's still a workable list. --W.marsh 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists. The article is a discriminate list with sources.  Happy New Year!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but change the redlinks to black. This is a historical TV format from many years ago.  As far as "incompleteness", I don't expect this list to attract cruft because this kind of show simply isn't done anymore.  Everything is already on the list.  Also people old enough to remember such things are long past the age when they'd be adding trivia to the wiki.  WP:Recentism is not a reason to delete the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:Recentism is an essay, not a policy, and "...editors are not obliged to follow it.", so I am not sure how effective that argument is. Pharmboy (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Recentism is only an observation. The issue is whether the list is possible to maintain.  I contend that the list is stable because it is a historical list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleteper nom. Tavix (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, as a useful, targetd list. Hey folks, it is a mess. Can we get the red links to NN shows out?  If kept, I'll take a crack at it. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 10 January 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.