Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable events in American television in January 2012


 * 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   merge to 2012 in American television. Merged by Jax0677 per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure)  Go   Phightins  !  01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Notable events in American television in January 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This violates the indiscriminate criteria, in my opinion. This information could do better work on the respective main articles [of the topics touched here], if they exist. — Ṟ  Ṉ™  02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep this article or delete 2012 in American television - This article is split from 2012 in American television due to size. I discussed this on the talk page of 2012 in American television prior to doing so, and there was only one vote against doing so.  If this article gets deleted, then we should delete the article from which it came.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Not news. What is a list of notable events except news?  Steve Dufour (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, all "a certain year in a certain area of interest" articles are the same. However if I (or somebody else) were to AfD one there would be an outcry of: "Why did you nominate this one when there are hundreds of others just the same?"  If a bunch were nominated at once it would be: "This AfD is part of a massive campaign to disrupt the project."  So I'm not going to bother. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Re-merge into 2012 in American television on procedural grounds, including the other ten "Notable events...2012" articles. Looking at the talk page for 2012IAT, there was one vote altogether on the question of breaking this apart into twelve separate articles with absolutely no consensus, or even much notification. Not seeing how 2012IAT was too long in the first place, this was an effort by one editor which seemed to over-complicate what is just a simple list of news events in American television, and I never saw a merge or split template atop of the main article at all, thus the eleven-way article split should be nullified and the article restored to the November 16th edit for not following proper procedures; I would do it but I'm following the AfD process first. That's the reason we have those templates, so other editors can chime in before something is carried out which could cause damage to encyclopedia content. As no notice of the split proposal was left with WP:TV, I have also left them a note about this nomination.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Template:Toolong box was there for over a week before I split the article off. The vote was one to one, so I went ahead and split the article, as it was over 300 kB when I did (the Notable Events section being over 150 kB).  I am willing to have the discussion now about reducing the article size.  If the community decides to revert, then I will accept that.  If WP:NOT is the verdict, then 2012 in American television should also be purged.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Response What you should have done is go through WP:SPLIT and used the template so that readers and constant editors could actually comment on the article before deciding on a split. Also, one to one isn't any kind of consensus; that's a draw at best and at worst out of basic policy. Just throwing on "TooLong" and thinking that would build up any consensus was unacceptable. I check the article 3-4 times a week and never knew there was a split discussion going on, and unless someone checks the talk page (very rare as most of the editors there build consensus through article content rather than talk), they would've never known about the split. As it is though putting the content in separate articles lost most of the context of each month and since some items are related to actions from other months, readers would be lost without being able to know something else happened months before (e.g. the AMC Networks/Dish and Cablevision/Trib disputes). And if the issue is the length of text, that's something easily dealt with through consensus rather than deletion, and there's no way 2012IAT should be deleted because there, every item must be sourced before its added in.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply - Apologies for not using a split tag, which places the article in a conspicuous place to be discussed. With that being said, I will likely accept whatever decision the WP community arrives at.  Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and re-merge into 2012 in American television per Mrschimpf. Powergate92   Talk  02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-merge into 2012 in American television per Mrschimpf. There was no consensus to split; I was the only person to respond to the proposal and I said oppose. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball - If no one objects, I am willing to invoke WP:SNOWBALL and allow this to be placed back in the main article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and re-merge into 2012 in American television per Mrschimpf. --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2012 (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.