Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television programs by episode count


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 07:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

List of television programs by episode count

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

Indiscriminate "trivial" list. Mostly unsourced original research, or numbers from unreliable sources (TV.com - "where the fans run the show"). Aside from shows that are no longer in production, this is an unmaintainable list that will become quickly outdated. [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to say delete when someone has clearly gone to a lot of work on this, but I doubt the figures and the list is unsourced. All the footnotes are truly for notes like "as of January 1, 2009", rather than sources.  This one makes a good guess as to how many episodes there have been for ESPN's SportsCenter, but do we know for sure that there have been 31,195 episodes as of January 9, 2009?  Or 20,718 episodes of the Today show as of 1/1/08?  Every once in awhile, there will be a celebration of some sort where a program reaches a milestone, but did All My Children acknowledge a 10,000th episode in November?  Has SC had a 30,000th episode?  I think that this one has gone a step too far by trying to be too precise, without the tools that precision requires, and with no explanation as to how the figure was reached.  It's not necessarily trivial, since the longevity of a show is often marked by recognized in the nth episode, but there's no room for inaccurate trivia.  Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that someone has obviously put work into this article, but with little to no references, it is - as you put it - inaccurate trivia.
 * This point is actually made evident by the fact that Coronation Street and Hollyoaks are listed as having "seasons", which they don't - they are produced all year round with no breaks between different series.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 14:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is a good and useful list. Not "trivia".  The solution is to fix it, clean it, source it ... not to delete it.   Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC))
 * What, exactly, is your definition of "trivia"? Delete as unsourced listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Welll sourced and referenced article. An easily maintained list - how is this "unmaintainable"? How many shows are going to sneak by with 20,000+ episodes and not be included?  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I think that when the nominator is saying unmaintanable, it's not that a program would be omitted from the list, but that the number of episodes of Sports Center or the Today Show changes every day. I'm going to ask the question, how is this "well sourced and referenced"?  Those little numbers after each entry don't lead to any citations.  Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily sourceable, not really trivial. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the notes section. Those aren't sources; they're comments disguised as sources. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I wrote. I said "sourceable", not "sourced". Just because the current references for the article are not sufficient does not mean that there are not other better sources out there. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and source better, the population of the earth and GNP of countries change continually, but we update once a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He's referring to lists that change all the time, but can easily be maintained. Just like this one.  Lugnuts  (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I can see a need for cleanup, but taking an article to AfD is not the proper way to do that. Tag the article with various cleanup tags. I also agree with the other keep comments. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Clean up what? It's just a list. It isn't a badly-written list, but it isn't encyclopedic either. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTS disagrees with you as there are literally thousands of lists here. In fact, there are over 1200 which are featured, so please drop the "it isn't encyclopedic" argument as it doesn't hold up. Cleanup entails many things, including adding proper citations. So yes, cleanup. Do you object to cleanup for some reason? ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This list has been tagged since October for improvement, and since December for sourcing. The only "improvement" was made by one editor who added more programmes and more 'Since ...' "sources". I see nothing wrong with including episode totals on individual articles, but I think this isn't really useful, and I stand by my unmaintainable stance - it is far too much work to keep this up to date and well sourced.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 10:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's only 2 or 3 months then since it was tagged. There's no timeline to get things cleaned up.  There is no policy that states if something is cleaned up within x amount of time it should be deleted.  Maybe be bold and find sources/refs yourself to help improve the article.  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, if we wanted to "be bold" we would simply blank the page. We'll stick to helping improve Wikipedia by removing false information.  There's no excuse for someone to toss out figures without saying where they got them from.  Some of the numbers on here have obviously been made up by someone who multiplied the age of the series by the days of the year.  The entry for the Today show is a perfect example of that-- supposedly it has had "20,718" episodes from January 14, 1952 to January 1, 2008.  But in that same 56 years, there hadn't even been 20,500 mornings (get a calculator and do the math), and the Today show most certainly has not been on every single morning since 1952-- it was Monday through Friday until more recent years, when it expanded to weekends.  Get a calculator and try running some of these numbers.  It's not that difficult-- there are at least 260 weekdays (Monday through Friday) in a year, so divide the alleged number of episodes by the length of time referred to.  Mandsford (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I didn't say all lists are unencyclopedic; this one is because it almost entirely consists of original research and fake sources. If you want to prove that the article is notable, add some real sources; simple as that. Even adding one or two sources should prove some notability; right now, the keep votes seem to only be backed up by WP:ILIKEIT and nothing else. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of being bold, I'm fairly certain that Metro isn't ending the comment with what might be mistaken for a keep vote. Normally, I would not do an edit on someone else's comment, and I apologize in advance, but there seems to be enough confusion about the lack of any sources for the article in question. Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that was actually a good call. :) But while we're at it, should we also delete this? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that the anime list has already been nominated for deletion, and that discussion was closed as a snowball keep. Unlike the list being discussed in this debate, I have no doubt that reliable sources exist for the anime list (and in many cases, these sources are already present on the series' article or episode list), it's just a matter of someone adding them. In addition, the anime list is being actively maintained by the parent project (I confess I have no idea of the status of this list, however). -User:Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.24.177 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The apparent Today show discrepancy can possibly be explained by the fact that from 1952 to 1958, the show was broadcast live as separate two-hour editions for each U.S. time zone (Infoplease). The episode count may be including four episodes a day for about six years. --Canley (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm-- the sourcing on the anime episode count is every bit as good as the sourcing on this article. Since it's anime, though, it might be more likely to "magically" improve on its own... Mandsford (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See my above reply to Metro. -User:Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.24.177 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, to be honest.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 21:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and send to WP:CLEANUP for formatting and ref fixes. Its a keeper and better than many such lists.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, other than the falsehoods and the inaccuracies, it's really good. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you agreeing that the article is good. WP:CLEANUP is the way to go to address any problems with sourcing or accuracy, perceieved or actual. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How much of the article isn't a falsehood or inaccuracy? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please can it with the bad faith assumptions here. It's likely most of the article contains all or mostly accurate information. There's no one here who doesn't agree the article needs to be cleaned up, but your acerbic comments throughout this discussion are out of line. If you have something useful to say, please do so. Otherwise, we don't need such unhelpful comments here. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am assuming good faith; you just don't seem to like the fact that I disagree with you. The end discussion will be based on consensus, won't it? How will we have that if we don't hear out differing opinions? And maybe it is likely that the article could be accurate, but we need inline sources, not comments. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 23:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And such sourcing would then be a reason for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me. I have a problem with arrogant questions such as "How much of the article isn't a falsehood or inaccuracy?" Your comment implies that you believe everyone who has contributed to the article was purposely including falsehoods and inaccuracies. That is clearly an assumption of bad faith. If you want to discuss the merits of the article as it stands, then discuss it rather than tossing out comments or questions such as that. Such questions do nothing to further discussion of the article. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sheesh; take a chill pill, will you? (And the article is slightly improving now.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that Metro and I have made our point that editors shouldn't smugly toss out numbers without any proof, and without any citations to verifiable sources. What we've done is very useful and very helpful.  In answer to his question (how much isn't false or inaccurate), a lot of the soap opera numbers are probably close-- in fact, Days of Our Lives actually broadcast its 11,000th episode today, which I can show by this link -- and All My Children had its 10,000th on November 12.   SportsCenter likes to call its shows, shown three times a day, "episodes", and they celebrated 30,000 in 2007.  The numbers for news shows appear to be made up-- the example of 20,718 installments of The Today Show in 56 years would mean that it was on every morning, and on twice on several hundred other mornings.  Even sillier is the number for Meet the Press-- on the air for the last "4,811" Sundays, which would mean that it's been on TV for about 90 years.  Mandsford (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt any of the editors who have worked on the article have done so "smugly". Yes, the article needs sources, and no one is arguing that, but this is another example of assuming bad faith on the part of the editors working on an article. Please keep comments focused on discussing the article rather than the contributors. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A possible source for many of these figures may be from this December 2007 article by Ken Hoffman in the Houston Chronicle: Prime time for a big Smackdown. Hoffman gives episode counts for a number of primetime and news programs ("Meet the Press has aired more than 4,750 episodes", "Same with the Today show, which debuted in 1952 — five, then six, now seven mornings a week. That's more than 20,000 episodes, all told.", "SportsCenter debuted in 1979, so let's put the over/under at 30,000 episodes"). Not to cast aspersions on your calculations, but these figures aren't too far from the numbers in this list (although, there is a possibility Hoffman used Wikipedia as a source), and see my possible explanation above of the Today show discrepancy. --Canley (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the problem - there is some well-sourced material out there, but it is out of date. December 2007 is over a year ago, and if that is all we have to go on (aside from "approximations") then it seems pretty pointless to me to have this article.  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The solution to unsourced or inappropriately-sourced and possibly inaccurate numbers is to replace them with appropriately sourced and accurate numbers, or, where the exact number is unknown or changing on a daily basis, reasonable approximations. DHowell (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but this is the third day, so why hasn't anyone added said sources yet? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there is no WP:DEADLINE, and judging it worthless because it has not been brought up to an arbitrary standard in an arbitrary length of time goes against guideline. All such lists are mutable and need upkeep and care. It may just be that editors who might wish to do so are waiting to see if it survives this AfD... as they may reason, "why do any work if the list is hated so much and is going to be tossed anyway?"  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is the lack of well sourced content, and the fact that reasonable approximations seems to go against WP:V, doesn't it?  [ジャム] [ t  -  c  ] 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbers that change on a daily basis can be verified for the moment or date they were posted, which meets WP:V... a day or a week or month later that number changes, but that does not undo the fact that it was at one time verified. Such lists need upkeep.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I've held off taking part in this AfD as I kind of see the point of the nominators, however as of today almost all the top items on this list have been sourced (I've just added three or four references myself). I agree with the removal of contentious inclusions such as the Today show until such time as they celebrate a clear milestone, and I feel that if a clear milestone and date are given in the references, it's not original research to include a more up-to-date approximation if the reader can work out or double check the figure for themselves. This type of list is not merely "trivia", and would not be out of place in a moderately specialised encyclopedia of television (i.e. Wikipedia is not Britannica). --Canley (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now. Thank you to everyone who added citations, and thank you to the nominator and the persons who pointed out the serious problems that this list had.  But for the nomination and the harsh-but-true criticism, there would have been no incentive for anyone to fix it.  This is how AfD should work, where articles that "can be" fixed actually are fixed, and those that are not up to par are deleted.  While an unsourced list was tolerated when Wikipedia was working its way up, Wikipedia has become the most popular site on the internet.  In articles that people rely upon, verifiable sources have to be standard equipment, not options. Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No offense, but WP:DEL in no way stipulates that articles should be deleted if they need improvement. D ARTH P ANDA duel &bull;  work 20:28, 23 January 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.