Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Discussion on how the article might be improved may take place on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to be an indiscriminate list of programmes broadcast by the BBC, one of the most well-known media organisations. The BBC has broadcast hundreds of thousands of programmes. There is no real objective basis for inclusion that I can discern, so the encyclopaedic worth of this must be put into question.  Ohconfucius  ping / poke 02:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Arbitrary list (the UEFA championship? Really?) that serves no higher purpose than to duplicate what could be better served by a category. § FreeRangeFrog croak 03:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent of many other recent discussions of channel offerings. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Too broad to be a list. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The BBC has produced many notable and distinctive shows such as Monty Python, Dad's Army, Sky at Night, Blue Peter, Doctor Who and so on. If there's an article for the show (which there is in all these cases) then, per WP:LISTPURP, a list is a perfectly valid way of navigating and browsing our content.  If the list is large, then it may be organised alphabetically, as at present, or subdivided by decade, genre or the like.  The existence of categories is no reason to delete as is made very clear by WP:CLN.  The claims that the list is too large to be manageable don't stand up as we have plenty of other large lists or hierarchies of lists including List of movies, List of books, List of minor planets, &c.  There is therefore no policy-based reason to delete. Warden (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep There's really nothing to add to what Colonel Warden has already said: this is what lists are for, and no reason for deletion applies. Jclemens (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is not indiscriminate; it is a list of programs "either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast on the BBC". That's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The argument has been made that the article is a duplicate of Category:BBC television programmes, but per WP:NOTDUP "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." The argument has also been made that a precedent has been made by "other recent discussions of channel offerings", but I participated in several of those discussions, and the consensus was to delete channel listings for satellite carriers (such as a list of Dish Network channels), not a list of programs for an individual over-the-air broadcaster (see Articles_for_deletion/List_of_digital_terrestrial_television_channels_(UK) for details). The difference is clear: listing a satellite company's channel offerings is in effect advertizing for the company. Listing the BBC's programs is something you might expect of an encyclopedia (I have several American television encyclopedias which do the same for US programs). Firsfron of Ronchester  20:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Depending on what you mean by "the BBC's programs," this list may be much vaster in scope and less discriminate than you think. It is a list of programs that have been broadcast by the BBC, not "the BBC's programs," assuming that by that you mean programs that were originally produced by or are owned by the BBC. The list as currently defined includes everything from original BBC productions to the BBC re-airing episodes of American television. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the list must only include programs produced by the BBC. Certainly the lists of programs broadcast by ITV and (a US example) NBC include series aired by (but not produced by) the broadcaster. As someone who has worked on such lists before, I'm quite aware of what a 'Broadcast by Network X' list is.  Firsfron of Ronchester  05:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. You can hardly argue that the group of program(mes) broadcast by the BBC isn't a notable group. It's also informational. (I, for one, track all changes to the page out of pure interest in, yes, programs broadcast on the BBC.) Meh222 (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep No policy reason to delete per Warden. Insomesia (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a perfectly acceptable list article. Any show shown to be notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have its own article, should be listed here if its on the BBC.  They all have something important in common.  The list would be more useful if it was sortable, having tables to list what years they were broadcast.   D r e a m Focus  00:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename & Revise Scope I am changing my vote, per below, but leaving my comments in place. Warden's argument leads by mentioning shows the BBC has produced. This list is of shows the BBC has broadcast, and as such includes quite a few shows that the BBC had nothing to do with producing, such as (these are pulled from a partial skim of the list):
 * American Dad!
 * Arrested Development (TV series)
 * The Flintstones
 * Flight of the Conchords (TV series)


 * That seems very indiscriminate to me indeed, and very different from any argument based around shows the BBC has "produced." I think most of the keep arguments above assume the list's scope to only include original BBC programming, which is not the case. Can the list's title and scope be revised to reflect BBC productions, or at least shows that have originated on the BBC ("produced" can get very vague and uncertain)?


 * Otherwise I strongly vote delete, because what we end up with is not at all like List of movies as Warden references above, we end up with literally everything the BBC has ever broadcast, which given the TV structure in the UK is essentially almost everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "almost everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK". Well, List of television programmes broadcast by ITV includes many examples of programmes in the UK which were not aired by the BBC. As do List of programmes broadcast by Boomerang (UK & Ireland), List of programmes broadcast by CITV, etc. Given that these other lists exist, it seems hyperbolic to claim that everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK aired on the BBC. Quite the contrary: 18 other British "broadcast by Network X" lists already exist. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly never said that "everything that has ever aired on TV in the UK aired on the BBC" :). I was making a point regarding the age and share of the BBC relative to all other UK networks. I also note that List of television programmes broadcast by ITV also includes (or could/should include) a number of programs that were also aired by the BBC, which is more to my point.


 * All that said, none of that addresses my view on this. A list of programs broadcast by any network inevitably includes a considerable amount of material that has little to no meaningful association with that network. A list of programs that were originated or produced by that network is not only more discriminating, it is more encyclopedic. The arguments for inclusion that have referenced individual programs have referenced classic BBC fare. I absolutely support a list that reflects that, and who wouldn't? That said, if my view is against established consensus -- and the presence of other such lists suggests it might be -- then so be it. Just...seems silly, to me. Seems to me that people looking for a list of BBC shows are looking for a list of BBC shows, not a list of everything they've aired. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  07:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There may be justification for narrowing the scope of this article, but there are a lot of lists of television series by network, and the BBC is one of the most famous networks in the world. If people want to start getting rid of lists of television series by network, they shouldn't start with BBC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Split. At present, the list is insanely unworkable, in my opinion - it's set out like a category, for starters. I propose we split this into decade lists, and include a little bit more information on the shows (number of series, first year/last year, major awards, who produced it, etc.). This would also make the redlinked articles present more relevant and, indeed, their presence more informative. There is simply no way this should be deleted completely (14,251 views in the last 30 days, for example), but it is currently not that useful. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This article has been at AfD twice before, in 2012 here, and as part of a bulk nomination in 2006, here. Both times it was kept. The article has a specified scope and so is not indiscriminate in the normal meaning of the word, nor does it seem to fall foul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Does it? The list is long and I suppose it very incomplete but those are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Lack of references is disappointing but so long as the entries are linked to articles (nearly all are) that is not a problem. Yes, I agree the list could be repurposed, pruned, made more informative (year when transmitted, production company, etc) but at AfD we should leave editors alone to get on with that sort of thing. Thincat (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SAL; a navigational index of notable topics. The article is too large to fit into the main article, and a link is posted there. It does not matter how useful or visible it is, it is if it is warranted rather. Another difference is this article places the items in list-form, which is handy, but not absolute. TBrandley (what's up) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm changing my vote. I think there is a possible discussion that can be had around re-scoping these "broadcast by" lists, but this is definitely not the right forum for it, and there's really no valid argument (that I can see) for outright deletion. Changing/clarifying my position to help prod this discussion to clear consensus. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  01:50, 9 January 2013 (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.