Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neighbours 2011 Ratings


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 01:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Neighbours 2011 Ratings

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE,Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically #3. Excessive listing of statistics. Muhandes (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This matter has already been settled, the page does meet the guidelines fine, its clean and readalbe. It is also collapsable, so there is no need for deletion. Mjs2010 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you say the matter has been settled. The issue is not with the list not being clean, readable, or even collapsible. It is with a basic Wikipedia policy, which I quote above. --Muhandes (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

JuneGloom ]]  Talk  20:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect. I redirected this when it first appeared and then PROD'd it, but I was kinda dragging my heals about bringing it here. The relevant information is already included in the main Neighbours article under Popularity and viewership. It's WP:LC and only relies on one website for sources. - [[User:JuneGloom07|


 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up, I really did think it was in regaurds to the table not being clean. As for it not meeting the wikipedia guidelines regaurding the lenght, other tables on wikipedia also have long lists of information,


 * 1) REDIRECT List of tallest buildings in the world
 * 2) REDIRECT List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
 * 3) REDIRECT List of most popular given names
 * 4) REDIRECT List of Home and Away episodes

These lists are all excessivly long, and have relevent information. Now in regards to JuneGloom, TV Tonight is Australias best and only TV website that records programing across Australia (that I know) hence why there is only onereferecne for every episode listed, if you know another site, please link me it :)

Also you say their is already information relevent on the main Neighbours page, there is, but only a small section is mentioned about 2011, and it only mentions the highest episode to air, ect, not all the individual episode ratings. Mjs2010 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a textbook violation of WP:NOTSTATS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree that this is an excessive list of statistics, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. – anemone projectors – 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Query: Is there any possibility that the scope of the list could be expanded, turning it into a full-fledged list of 2011 episodes? I know that episode lists for year-round series aren't common, but List of The Bill episodes was kept at AfD. 2011 isn't an ideal starting point for a series that's been on air for so long, but it's just a suggestion. Of course, if that's not possible - I don't know whether there are reliable sources to verify the writers/directors etc. for Neighbours episodes (I just did a search and only turned up fansites) - then delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE - a list of ratings alone is too narrow a scope to be of encyclopaedic value. Frickative  22:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is to be deleted, I do propose we delete the Home and Away episode list section page, cause that is of same vaule if not less than the Neighbours 2011 ratings. Mjs2010 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOT  Sp in ni ng  Spark  21:07, 7 March 2011 (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.