Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of television channels


 * 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 the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 02:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Lists of television channels

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

This list aims to catalog all the other lists about television channels in a country, language or region. The problem is, since its inception five full years ago, it has always been neglected. In fact, in stucture it has not changed one bit from when it was originally created. It's extremely poorly maintained, with many wrong links and listing old pages turned redirects. How could it be any different when there are categories, self-maintained, correctly subdivided and easier to consult? Maybe Wikipedia didn't have this category system when it was created, I don't know. All I know is that this page, today, is totally pointless. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Update it by all means, but this is a useful bit of organization. Unless or until Wikipedia consensus bans the lists featured (I only see bluelinks), having an overall list is perfectly viable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: again, why should I or anyone alse do that? Let the bots do the listing, so we can focus our time on building an encyclopedia. There are many lists needing human intervention, not this one. Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep No real need to delete. Now if there were a proposal to delete all lists, I might buy that, but such does not appear to be the case. Collect (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete every list on Wikipedia, but having a list of television stations is foolish, think about it: would anyone create a list of all books ever written just because it would be uselful? There are tens of thousands of tv stations in the world, the only way is categorizing. And even if you left the list as it is what makes you think it will be updated, if it wasn't in the last five years?--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Some people like to use lists, some people like to use categories, but we all like to be able to navigate through the information. There's room for both means of seeing what's on Wikipedia.  In answer to the question about neglect, I honestly don't see the need to update the entries if they are redirects to other articles (List of Norwegian television channels redirects to Television in Norway, for instance).  To say "the only way is categorizing" is to say that there is only one right way to look for information.  Quoting from WP:LIST, "Redundancy between lists and categories is beneficial because they are synergistic."  Wikipedia does not require choosing between one or the other. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a standard navigational aid. It helps navigate pages like List of television stations in the United Kingdom which offer information that cannot be categorized (WP:CLN). The reason it hasn't been edited for so long, is probably because it didn't need much changing. Regardless, a lack of work on a page is not a valid reason for deletion unless the contents are blatantly false. (WP:NOEFFORT) - Mgm|(talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a simple case where WP:SOFIXIT applies to double redirects, and I only see one redlink on the page. There is no neglect that I see beyond the fact there's not much to update (unless some nation suddely makes Pig Latin their official language and requires a broadcaster to use it), and there is no rule about having multiple paths to the same information; in my eyes as long as you can get to it whether by direct or Google search, what links here, templates or inline links from other articles, it reflects the fact that all information here is bonded together. Article lethargy is not a cause for deletion.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Concur with all the keeps above and this debate should be closed before the snowball WP:SNOW runs over Piccolo.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:26, 20 December 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.