Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of myNetworkTV 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 Speedy keep per A1. SynergeticMaggot 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

List of myNetworkTV affiliates
Yet another list article that has no reason to exist. The information should be part of the article about MyNetworkTV and not an out of context list. The information from this list belongs in the main MyNetworkTV article and the indivdual television stations belong article in a category. This article violates What Wikipedia is not and What Wikipedia is not.Displaced Brit 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep useful and sourced. I'm not allowed to say anything else or this user will harrass and stalk me. --CFIF ☎ 04:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per CFIF. If you delete this, several more articles go with it. Though a category exists as well, this also includes ownership and digital subchannel items. TrackerTV (CW|Castform|Green Valley) 04:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This list is highly useful and all sources are cited. This list is the work of a hundred editors who worked hard to compile a credible list of affiliates. Every item on this list has been confirmed by B&C magazine and other reputable sources, and contrary to user:Displaced Brit's earlier nominations, this list does not have a brief introduction; there is clear context. Additionally, D.B's claims that the items in this list belong in the main article make no sense, as the items in this list would cause the page to exceed the recommended page size. This nomination is a clear violation of WP:POINT, judging from nominator's background (check out user:Displaced Brit's talk page for details).-- Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Ignoring what appears to be an ongoing conflict, my gut says to merge this into the MyNetworkTV article, and I was going to suggest this as it seems to touch on some of the major points of why the network was created in the first place. I need to sleep on this to come up with a solution to suggest. This is really a tough call and needs some thought, despite what may or may not be a spiteful nomination. TV Newser 05:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. If you deleted that you would have to delete List of CBS affiliates, List of NBC affiliates, List of FOX affiliates, List of ABC affiliates, etc. TJ Spyke 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a perfect example of where a list can do more than a category, and it's way too big to merge anywhere. BryanG(talk) 05:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per above. --Daniel Olsen 05:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong and Speedy Keep per above — SterlingNorth 06:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * further comment to my vote above -- I remember a quote from somewhere: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". I also remember a rule that says to ignore all rules. There are 155 stations in this list. That means this list spans 9 pages on its own. Merging it into the MyNetworkTV article would make that article unwieldy. This page is handy for reference as the stations are listed by market, rather than by alphabet which is useless for seeking out stations where the letters may not mean anything at all (and every station begins with either a K, a W, or an X), which is how it would be listed if it was left to the category system. Furthermore, it has information which would be harder to find if the proposal to delete is approved. Many of these stations are either secondariry affiliated with MyNetTV or are placing it on a digital subchannel. This list easily gives that information -- the category doesn't. And lastly, it's actually easier to use this list to aide in checking the accuracy of the individual articles and categories, by fact it provides a brief description of each MyNetTV station (call letters, market, owner, type of affiliation, etc.) This table has helped me correct a number of mistakes in individual articles that may have gone uncorrected. SterlingNorth 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * one additional comment -- from Displaced Brit's link on what Wikipedia is not contains this statement: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted; see List of locations in Spira for an example." I believe this article constitutes a "reference table" which is allowed here. — SterlingNorth 07:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong & Speedy Keep - Sources are correct for all stations, list is comprehensive and #1 Google search under the term 'my network tv affiliates' (which will be very important come the week the network starts and thereafter), and would way be too unwieldy to merge within the main MyNet article. This article has been up for months and has strict quality control, and I think this and List of CW affiliates are great examples of what happens when multiple editors work to create a great list that many people will find of interest to them. Nate 09:59, 19 August 2006 (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.