Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by ITV


 * 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 per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Finalnight

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV

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

(Contested prod.) WP:LISTCRUFT. No encyclopaedic value as it will never be complete. There's already a category of ITV programmes so this is just an unnecessary duplicate. Ros0709 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed, the category takes care of it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, Keep some good points have been made. I personally think it's silly, but there's nothing in Wikipedia that says to delete all articles that I think are silly...--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per above. - tholly  --Turnip-- 20:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Redundancy is the key word here. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete . "Redundant with category" is contrary to the relevant guidelines and is never a valid delete criterion - and that appears to invalidate all !votes above mine(!). See WP:CLS and the nutshell section of WP:LIST. However, there are lists which are potentially so broad in scope as to be untenable, and it seems to me this is one of that kind. I'd encourage User:David12345678910111213 to start with something narrower in scope: perhaps a list of programmes produced by one of the individual franchises. That would stand a better chance in an Articles for Deletion debate, and could eventually grow in the direction he seems to be aiming at, here. AndyJones (talk) 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Consensus can change so just because opinions run contrary to guidelines doesn't invalidate anything. The list is not too broad, because there is only a finite number of ITV-produced programmes, and that number is not going to be more than a few hundred. The fact is this is better served with a category and as one who works a lot with these articles, I am aways adding them to the category. I never think to add them to a list article. Someone looking for an exhaustive list of ITV programs (or indeed the programs of any network) are best served going to the category pages. 23skidoo (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per huge precedent. Can someone please explain what makes this list different from the dozens of similar lists which are repeatedly kept at AfD: e.g. Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks, Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by C4, Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by MyNetworkTV, Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by National Broadcasting Network, Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Spike, and Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN, and why the arguments to keep in all of those discussions don't apply to this list? DHowell (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX Ros0709 (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing to Keep. As Skidoo points out, the list is probably not too broad, which was my only real doubt about the article. DHowell makes a valid point, to which citing WP:WAX is no kind of answer. And, as I've pointed out above, the nomination and all delete votes are contrary to the WP:CLS guideline. (Citing WP:CCC is no kind of answer to that, either. If consensus actually does change on this point that'll be one thing - as it is, an AfD discussion is a discussion about whether an article meets our policies and guidelines: and unless someone has a new argument that hasn't been presented yet, this article does). AndyJones (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, your previous citations of WP:CLS and WP:LIST pretty much blew away my main argument, which was that having both a list and a category was a Bad Thing. If I was the closing admin I would probably be swayed to close as "keep" on the strength of your argument (and unless any major new comments are made I expect the nomination will close that way). Personally, I believe that's not a great policy, but Policy is Policy. OTOH, I believe WP:WAX is similarly the exact right response above for the same reason: WP:WAX is a policy and it applies precicely to that kind of reasoning. Ros0709 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I appreciate we're no longer disagreeing, but I think I should point out that WP:WAX is neither a policy nor a guideline, merely part of an essay. AndyJones (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are quite right; my bad. It still answers the question "why the arguments to keep in all of those discussions don't apply to this list" though! Ros0709 (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Although, with respect, it doesn't, because:
 * the essay at WP:AADD is there for the benefit of idiots and newbies (and sometimes for us experienced editors who should know better), while DHowell was making a proper grown-up point that deserved more than a glib answer;
 * I refer you to the second bullet of the nutshell of WP:AADD which reads: "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)", which is exactly what you did; and
 * it really is a different argument: WP:WAX criticises the logic of an argument that runs "keep this article on twibbles because we have an article on twobbles" which is irrelevant because it purports to shift the focus to the reasons for having an article on twobbles, rather than the subject under discussion. DHowell was making a different and more articulate point: other articles exactly comparable to this one have been AfD'd, and kept, after mature discussion of the principles which should also be applied at this AfD (to which he provided links). It's surely quite easy to see that is a different argument from that at WP:WAX, even if if you don't necessarily agree with my view that it is valid and more compelling. AndyJones (talk) 22:44, 28 June 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.