Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of science fiction film and television series by lengths


 * 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   delete. Consensus is that this is a good synthesis but not for wikipedia. Happy to userfuly somewhere is someone wants to transwiki the material to a more suitable external site. Leave a note on my talk if you want to do that. Spartaz Humbug! 17:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

List of science fiction film and television series by lengths

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This list is entirely redundant to List of science fiction films, List of science fiction television programs and List of science fiction television films. Per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:SALAT, we don't need an independent list which indicates the length of programs. If timings are considered relevant, they can be added to the main lists. The last two AFDs ended in no consensus, mainly due to keep !votes based on the fact that an earlier discussion in 2006 resulted in consensus to keep. Claritas § 16:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:SALAT. I can't imagine the usefulness of a list that sorts science fiction series and films by total running time.  Movementarian (Talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT/WP:NOTDIR. Days hours minutes? Come on! Redundant with better list articles where run time could be included if absolutely necessary (it isn't).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL aren't reasons for me to say keep. Although I appreciate the effort that was put into this, it's the very definition of "original synthesis", and even good OR is still OR, good trivia is still trivia, and good cruft is still cruft.  However, I hope that the closing administrator will give the article's creator time to put this information onto the entertainment wikis for the various shows, where it would get a more favorable reception.   Within Memory Alpha, for instance, it is useful and interesting to know that one could spend 23 days watching the Star Trek universe (or 4,014 minutes watching the original series, which works out to something like slightly less than 3 days).   While I see no policy that would justify having this maintained here, the information would be most welcome in places where OR is accepted.  Hopefully, the folks in Deletionpedia will leave the lights on as well.  Mandsford 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to keep the content available, why not put it into your userspace temporarily ? Claritas § 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, WP:IDONTLIKEITTHATMUCH. Mandsford 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete mostly per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Reyk  YO!  23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki this interesting piece of Original Research elsewhere, please. (...and then delete it, of course) I gotta admire the effort here, but really?  As a rule of thumb, anything that talks about "canon" needs to have a cannon taken to at least that part of the article: we don't debate canon here. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * um, somehow preserve this somewhere else and give the creator a gold star for original research yes, this doesnt belong here, but its actually kind of brilliant. it needs to be made dynamic, so you can sort by total time, then it would be awesome. then, expanded to include all other dramatic works in series, not just SF. I wonder if people would actually PAY to visit the site if really fleshed out? oh, and of course, if the site this is sent to becomes notable for this piece of work, we can then create an article about it. good luck.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Move somewhere else Definitely gold star material, but pure OR that should be saved somewhere. If nothing else, keep it as an example of OR that can't be kept here! htom (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename and modify — I created this page over five years ago when I was a nerdy undergrad who didn't understand what Wikipedia was for. It seems out-of-place in the encyclopedia now, but I nevertheless am not sure that I can vote to delete.  The information in it was derived from addition, so it's no more WP:OR than are age calculation templates.  Furthermore, I've seen this list linked to from other sites, which gives me the impression that it is notable.  I don't think it's redundant to the lists linked by the nominator because those are for just films or television series.  I think it would be useful to have a list of series across media, although the list would need to be re-designed for that purpose.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think that the addition of times is that straightforward. You, and others, have had to decide which shows were canon or non canon, research the runtimes, which are not always noted at their wp articles. i dont think this would be out of place here if it was simply listed somewhere else, and some indication of how many people viewed it could be provided. But i can see how a case can be made for the additions being trivial. unfortunately, sites linking to this article cant qualify as an argument for notability, but it does point to this information being valuable to some, thus potentially notable. cant find the links myself, but that would be hard to do.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It list the series, how many episodes they had, and how long every episode or film lasted. Some people might be interested to see how long things lasted.  If any information is sincerely doubted as valid, you can easily find confirmation in the primary source.  Amazon and other places that sell films, list how many minutes long they are.   D r e a m Focus  04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Due to reruns etc., there's no definite length of most series. It's basically WP:OR and WP:SYN to assume there to be one. Claritas § 06:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, I think it's an interesting piece so it would be good if it could be preserved somewhere - maybe there's a sci-fi wiki that could use it - but it is in essence original research. The added up numbers themselves are borderline but for me the real issue is that this method of classification seems to have no precedent. Even if all the information can be reliably sourced - which is in itself somewhat questionable - using it in this novel way is synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2010 (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.