Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television shows currently in syndication


 * 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. Categories exist; if anyone wants this list to complete categorisation, I will restore it to userspace on request. --Sam Blanning(talk) 14:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

List of television shows currently in syndication
This article is yet another bloody list and as all the lists I have found seems to be in violation of both No original research and What Wikipedia is not. The article has a small introduction which I shall reproduce here in full: "This is a list of television shows currently in syndication in the United States." A list then follows along with a second list "Shows entering syndication for the 2006-2007 television season" which is just made up of a brief preamble, this time slightly larger, and another list. Also I really do not see how this article can ever be verified as either complete or accurate. Displaced Brit 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I object to the organization and find the list almost unmaintainable, but it's not a ridiculous idea. I'll let other people comment. AdamBiswanger1 03:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete High mantainance lists (as opposed to ones with fixed membership, only growing) would be better as catagories. Plus, lists are best used when an explaining citation is needed for the entry to make sense - which in this sense should not be needed. LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also suffers from being entirely American in origin, inappropriate for such a broad name LinaMishima 03:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest taking a looking at Categories vs lists or WP:LIST--TBC TaLk?!? 04:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename List of television shows currently in syndication in the United States; it helps the reader navigate through articles of a related topic, thus fullfilling the criterias of the WP:LIST guideline. --TBC TaLk?!? 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion is that sub catagories would be easier to maintain, and more appropriate, as Lists are best used when the entry onto the list should be qualified. But that's my personal stylistic opinion, and ultimately doesn't disagree with you as such. LinaMishima 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and rename, but only because of the amount of red links here. I'd rather use a category otherwise. BryanG(talk) 04:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Lists are good for encouraging content expansion, whereas this is impossible with catagories. LinaMishima 04:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a big list with useful info. --Caldorwards4 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol possible vote.svg|20px]] Comment: There's a part of me that thinks this is a WP:POINTed nom, especially given the list's length and history. Morgan Wick 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This will be IMPOSSIBLE to keep up to date. Doczilla 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - articles shouldn't say Current, especially not in the title. Jesus Murphy! WilyD 12:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not implying Black current should be deleted. It's good. WilyD 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per TBC 's suggestion. This is a legitimate topic that people researching the media world might find incredibly useful. Failing a renaming, at the very least, categorize it. - Thorne N. Melcher 17:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a large, unmaintainable list, so it is better suited as a Category.  Cdcon   17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize. Too broad and unmaintainable for a list. I would support a list (or category) listing shows produced specifically for syndication, as opposed to just listing the hundreds of rerun series out there, too. 23skidoo 18:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and categorize per 23skidoo. -- Slowmover 19:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and make it a category. As an article it's just going to be a whopping mess. --Wafulz 00:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep lists. They do not violate the proscriptions against original research or directories. Lists do not have to be complete to be valuable. Fg2 01:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * comment This applies equally to catagories, to which in terms of completeness lists do have the advantage, as non-existant articles can be featured. However one could argue that an out-of-date list is of little value, and this list's subject matter is prone to seasonal changes. As catagories are easier to keep up to date, this would make a catagory more viable LinaMishima 01:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete useless list of original research, outdated information, and no notable links to it. -- Xinit 21:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Seems like a bad faith nom, user is just out to nominate lists for deletion "I hate bloody lists!" --CFIF (talk to me) 01:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainable. -Sean Curtin 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listcruft. Zaxem 08:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this potentially useful list. NTXweather 13:46, 20 August 2006 (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.