Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by TV 2 (Norway)


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by TV 2 (Norway)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

As per Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Indosiar and Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by TV ONE (Indonesia) this is indiscriminate, non-notable and a directory/TV guide page. Unlike those pages it is too big to merge so please let's delete it outright this time, then lock a redirect in place to prevent recreation. Benefix (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous AfD's. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So what exactly do you consider to be indiscriminate? There's clear boundaries as to what is and isn't included - so to me indiscriminate doesn't cover it. How else do you suppose such material should be covered, external link on the channel article? category wildfire? - Mgm|(talk) 22:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Categories would bloat the page, and I doubt if there is a website that provides a record of their past programming, so the link would not be as useful as this page. But tough luck unless you have any other ideas, we've already decided these things are indiscrimate and there is no reason to keep Norwegian pages when the Indonesian ones have been deleted. Benefix (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are this "we" that have "already decided these things are indisciminate"? A handful of editors arguing to delete a handful of Indonesian lists doesn't create a consensus to delete a list of programs broadcast by the largest television network in Norway. Besides, the Indonesian lists weren't deleted, they were redirected or merged. And "we" actually have decided that such lists are a valid part of Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per ample precedent for lists of programs aired on a national network, including the major U.S. broadcast networks: List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by NBC, etc.; and cable/satellite networks: List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, List of programs broadcast by Discovery Channel. See also Template:Lists of TV programs by country and Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks. This is evidently the largest TV network in Norway, so this is just as valid as any of these other lists. DHowell (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Benefix (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "This is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is an invalid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale ...") and WP:JUSTAPOLICY ("... citing an essay (like this one) just by one of its many shortcuts ... without further explanation, is similarly ill-advised..."). My argument is not just that other stuff exists, but that other similar stuff exists whose existence is upheld by numerous discussions and strong consensus. The Indonesian AfDs (which didn't end up in complete deletion anyway) are the exception, not the rule. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My question is - how does this list benefit anyone? Why is it important? Essentially, what good does such broad criteria do for Wikipedia in the long run? - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Large television network in Norway, broadcasting for the past 16 years. It's not inconceivable that someone researching Norwegian television history would find this article entirely useful. BTW, decades of research have been involved in the reconstruction of early U.S. television history, which was poorly preserved: had Wikipedia been around, it would not have been necessary for TV historians to attempt to reconstruct lists like this one. If there's one thing Wikipedia does well, it's pop culture, so deletion of the stuff Wikipedia excels at makes little sense. "How does this list benefit anyone?" is a short-sighted argument. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't know the future, I agree. However, I would say it is inconceivable to see how this could become notable, since historical precedence isn't being set ("history isn't being 'made' "). So how do you conceive it? Storing data for future generations is an understandable motive for inclusion, but what the TV historians needed was the internet to exist, not Wikipedia. The internet stores everything just fine. Wikipedia isn't needed as data storage for the scholars of 3009. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "We can find it elsewhere on the internet" is not really a good reason to delete articles. There are entire books written on television network programming, including many which are called "encyclopedias". However, because of systemic bias and FUTON bias, it is much more difficult to find such information for many non-English speaking countries. Of course the information is out there, but much of it is likely tucked away in brick-and-mortar Norwegian libraries. The difficulty in finding such resources on the net for non-English speaking countries is a good reason to retain articles such as this on Wikipedia. DHowell (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, DH. I'd only add that "history isn't being made" is another debatable statement. These shows will almost certainly be a part of history, depending on one's definition of where history begins. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they are part of history. Everything is part of history. "making history" is a matter of current awareness of notability and future notability. Anyway... TV2 Norway's website is the repository, the internet is archived. More information at IMDB also. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a time capsule. I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't apply.
 * Books are written on the subject on the subject of TV programming. I'm not suggesting that an article on TV2, TV in Norway, or TV programming be deleted.
 * A list of every BBC program ever would be pretty pointless too imo. Systemic bias isn't the issue. Unless I'm biased against TV. A list of every Xbox game, or every game published by Konami... every book published by any publishing company you care to name... whether these things exist on Wikipedia or not, the idea of Wikipedia storing them for posterity is laudable but misguided imo. As a resource, Wikipedia is for the general reader, but not as just a collection of things that are interesting. Articles about TV2 programming - great. This list just increases the information to knowledge ratio, and should be discouraged.  Wikipedia as academic reference - won't work, won't happen. As data store for professional researchers - not neccessary. As general reference - great idea.
 * Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2009 (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.