Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Both sides make some points that have merit - but at this point in time I do not see a significant enough of a consensus among those voicing sentiment for "delete", to warrant deletion of the page. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. This one is a bit tricky. I'm not sure why we, as an encyclopedia, are promoting a non-neutral list such as this even if it is from TV Guide's collective point of view. We do have similar lists such as List of films considered the worst but that one is a hybrid or combination of various publications. There are also some concerns regarding possible copyright violation, and I'm not sure if that's been resolved by only republishing the top 10 of their 50. Is it? JBsupreme (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think only having the top 10 falls under fair use (non-free content). That said this list just isn't that notable. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep What we have is fair use, and they are a reasonable group to use for the purpose, being the best known and longest standing guide by a very considerable margin. But it would be much better if here were multiple lists we could use for a more comprehensive article.    DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't have any strong copyright concerns- top ten of a fifty item list is reasonable fair use. Where's the notability, though?  AP wrote a story about this when it came out, but I don't see any notability for the list.  An article about the general concept and opinions of the best television shows of all time could be done like List of films considered the worst, which looks nothing like this article, and includes multiple sources and viewpoints.  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are many similar lists on Wikipedia about a magazine, organization or individual's published list of bests, such as:
 * Time magazine's 100 best TV shows of all-TIME
 * Time magazine's "All-TIME" 100 best movies
 * 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
 * The 100 Greatest Cartoons
 * BFI Top 100 British films
 * Oklahoma Film Critics Circle: Top 10 Films
 * The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time

Categories even exist for such lists, e.g. Category:Top lists and Category:Top television lists. It would seem to come down to notability, and this one appears to be notable, especially given Wikipedia's focus on pop culture. Ecphora (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to TV Guide Ultimately, I think this will end up kept because people like this type of article, mostly because people like reading such surveys. However I think this is the literal example of the argument that "Wikipedia is not TV guide".  The reality is that TV Guide, as with any other magazine, is going to do a "special issue", several times a year, in which it lists greatest shows, worst shows, greatest episodes, etc.  Sometimes we'll keep lists such as the ones cited by Ecphora, not because they were historically notable, but for the same reasons people buy special issues--curiosity.  The list was never notable to begin with; it was interesting in 2002, less so in 2007, and... ten years after the newest show on that list (The Sopranos)... nothing more than a TV Guide in the attic.  Notability is not temporary, but the latest news is temporary.  Ideally, one would have a paragraph in the magazine article (or in an article about such lists) that summarizes who the "winners" were, and-- most importantly-- a link that people can click upon in order to (take your pick, "verify" or "read" copyrighted material.  Essentially, that's what this article has to do, dancing around actually reciting the copyrighted list.  The dance moves are the "breakdown of shows" section, in which the authors are saying that they really really would like to tell us more, but here is our original synthesis of highlights-- oldest show, network with most shows, etc.  Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per DGG. A comparative list would be good at some point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - If I can google and find the whole list and this isn't a combination of sources what's the point of keeping it? As a reader I would be annoyed at only finding the top ten when I was trying to find all fifty. Peppage tlk  20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Queries. Is there a copyright concern? CBS News gives all 50. Did they ask for permission? If they didn't, why can't we give all 50? Abductive  (reasoning) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CBS places the whole list under fair use. Wikipedia has much more stricter fair use policy. See Non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a non-notable listing based on a single magazine article. Such lists should only have their own Wikipedia articles when they are very widely reported on in third party sources should have their own articles.  Ones like this that are just a flavour of the week should not.  Since this article is about a specific subject (TV Guide's list) rather than a Wikipedia list it must fully conform to the standard notability guideline.  None of the sources mentioned above, or that I could find in a google search satisfy those criteria.  Likewise I believe that many of the lists cited by Ecphora should also be deleted, but see Other stuff exists.  In any event, since notability is the primary concern they each need to be evaluated on their own merits.  Eluchil404 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2010 (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.