Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (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 Delete The very premise of this article is based on original research in the respect that it is trying to quantitatively compare the opinions of disparate sources as to what constitutes the "greatest ever" television series. Some of these entries are being touted as "greatest ever" based on time aired, some on determination in various magazines. At this point there isn't even anything worth merging or refactoring in this article but if I had to give any recommendation it would be better to do fresh lists that were source specific (i.e. Best Television shows according to "Reliable Source X") and tie them together with a master list.--Isotope23 talk 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Television series considered the greatest ever
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is the second time this article has been proposed, yet having watched the page since the previous nomination was closed on 14 June 2007, it appears to have progressed no further than being a heated debate between Plasma Twa 2 and AKR619 which at one point led to it being protected. To me, it appears that the rules for inclusion have been decided by two individuals and a brief look at the edit history reveals nothing but editor's point of view, which violates any number of policies but specifically WP:NPOV. The recent deletion of Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever has concreted my suspicion that this article is probably not going to progress beyond being a magnet for POV. Bob talk 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - The problem with the article as it stands, as I read it, is not POV but original research. The article doesn't make arguments about different shows' relative excellence, but compiles various verifiable (if not always well-sourced) measures of relative success. But it's a notable topic with interesting, relatively NPOV information. Llajwa 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree it could potentially be interesting, but as I see it, most of the inclusions appear to suggest that longevity is a measure of 'greatness', which, as you say, is original research. Bob talk 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The title of the list seems to be narrow enough to define the list per WP:LIST guidelines. HOWEVER, several entries need to be removed since they CLEARLY do not meet the title.  Being "considered the greatest ever" requires that some reliable publication has named you such.  There are some shows that qualify, however this list contains MANY that clearly DO NOT meet this criteria.  However, this is a cleanup issue, and not a delete issue.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is nothing more than a neutral point of view article, there are too many opintions on this for this to be a decent article. DBZROCKS   Its over 9000!!!  20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous AfD discussion hasn't been posted. I'm sure that I wrote something brilliant in support of or in opposition to the article, but I don't recall what it was. Mandsford 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:UNENC and WP:NPOV. These programmes have nothing in common other than that completely unrelated organisations across the world have at various points in the last few decades voted them at some point the best. That's an indiscriminate collection of information.  A1octopus 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate collection of information, directory of loosely associated topics, no possible objective criteria for inclusion. Otto4711 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep First, a correction. For my part, at least, I only agreed to having some of the longest running shows on the article to avoid having another revert war with AKR. I really don't care what shows get on the article, as long as they were actually voted the greatest. I don't like them being on, and yeah, they probably should be deleted. Like Jayron said, it's not a delete issue, but a cleanup issue. The article does need alot of work, but I don't see how that means it should get deleted. It has been alot worse in terms of POV, anyway. --Plasma Twa 2 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Yes, the opinions can be sourced to critics, polls, etc, but who decides which sources are significant enough to count? Two examples from the list; TIME magazine's "best television show of the 20th Century" is obviously significant, but Channel 9's 50 Years/50 Shows special in Australia is nowhere near as significant. Where do we draw the line at what sources to rely on, and which to discount? Just because a source passes WP:RS doesn't mean their opinions should be used to create a list like this. Masaruemoto 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced and not original research. People can judge the merits of each source for themselves as they read it. I never agreed with Billboard Top 100, since it seemed to be a "pay to play" scheme, but it was the industry standard before Nielsen SoundScan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if the criteria can be specified more exactly--which is an editing question only. Might be possible to find a better wording for the title of the article.DGG (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, the problem is exactly that - an individual editor deciding what the inclusion criteria should or should not be is original research. Bob talk 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose an editor calling an article "top ten" or "top 100" is arbitrary too, but we use it for most lists. If the Phoenicians had their way it would a "top 12" and "top 144". They already got their way with dividing the day, and dividing the degrees in a circle based on 12. Damn them to Hell. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it survived an earlier nomination as keep just a few months ago and because it is a sourced article as well and satisfies List by being coherently organized. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. Consensus can change. Using the past AFD isn't a real reason to keep things. The same goes for "organized lists". Being organized falls under an I like it argument in my view. This user has posted similar comments in other articles that are in their 2nd nomination, and has been told of consensus can change (but just ignores it). RobJ1981 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest of this thread is on the talk page.--chaser - t 03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)''


 * Delete, and move information to respective articles Though the article contain no original research or do not violate any policies, I don't see the reason for us to keep the article simply because the information in this article can be expressed in the Wikipedia articles of the television shows. For example, the line "The Simpsons was voted the best television show of the 20th Century by TIME magazine and has won more Emmys than any other animated television show" can be placed in The Simpsons itself. Or for better navigation. you can create a template showing all greatest shows. I just don't think an article is even needed. Chris!  c t 04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, such subjective criteria are a necessary evil to place a work in its historical/social context. That is not necessary for this article, and an encyclopedia should not concern itself with wholly subjective fields. --JohnEMcClure 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment an encyclopedia should aim at doing more than that. it's not just a place for people to look up particualr series and fit about about them. it should indicate what series have been considered most important, and as long as its sourcrced properly, and represents the most imprtant evaluations, the material is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What constitutes "the most important evaluations" and by whose standards can that determination be made in a POV-neutral manner? Otto4711 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   —--Quiddity 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep article should be improved through regular editing per WP:AFD, deleting this content does not make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Benjiboi 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Refactor and rename the "best ever" thing is inherently POV, and the polls are open to rigging, but most of these shows serve as an archetype for a particular genre, so to have a list of shows identified as archetypes, with sources, would remedy the POV issue. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And what definition of "archetype" do we use and what non-POV standard do we use to decide that a source's calling a show "archetypal" is sufficient to warrant inclusion and how is that any different from calling it "the best ever"? Otto4711 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. 'The greatest ever' relates to a notable source claiming such a thing, not a Wikipedia editor's opinion. Of course, the selection of such sources and the way they are presented should be done in the neutral-point-of-view way. In the same way that we have Films considered the greatest ever, we should have Television series considered the greatest ever, Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever, Songs considered the greatest ever, Albums considered the greatest ever, People considered the greatest ever, etc. I am sure there are plenty of sources to back up all such articles. I think the encyclopedia would benefit from such articles. --Yury Petrachenko 08:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Deciding which sources are themselves notable enough to claim something is "the greatest ever" automatically renders the article biased towards certain countries, publications or members of society. Who gives an editor the right to decide which publications or surveys are notable enough? This is exactly the reason this article was nominated for deletion, because since the last debate there has been nothing but dispute over what constitutes the contentious term "greatness". Bob talk 09:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Incidentally we had an Actors and Actresses Considered the Greatest Ever page, but it was soon deleted because people weren't fans of the actors listed, or they didn't like the fact they're favourite actors weren't on the list. --AKR619 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe, or perhaps it was because the discussion gained a consensus that it had the same problems as this article? Bob talk 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it was what AKR said. There was a consensus on the talk page, yeah, but in the actual discussion nearly everybody said something about an actor that wasn't/was on the list. Kind of irritating. But that article had more problems then this one. That one was all rewards and box office success. Anyway, Bob. Please read WP:WIGAD. It seems your complaint is about nothing ever happening to this article, which in no way is grounds for deletion. And it has already been established that greatest ever lists are encyclopedia-worthy (See films considered the greatest ever. If it survived two afds with large support then it clearly belongs on wikipedia). And, according to WP:WIGAD; "As long as the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, the article should never, ever, ever be deleted." --Plasma Twa 2 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, that isn't actually a policy. Bob talk 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. I just told you to read it, since it's there to make Wikipedia a better place. --Plasma Twa 2 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. How about this: Flavors of ice cream considered the greatest ever.   Sound like a good idea?  Didn't think so.  Bur nt sau ce  16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any article/list/section about film/tv/literary criticism will have to make choices about what critics are notable enough to include. Moreover, this variety "original research" is inherent in the writing of just about every article in any encyclopedia--it's juts a problem who the most reliable sources are in a field. The ice cream example is a ridiculous straw man: television criticism is an important field, unlike ice cream criticism.  Calliopejen1 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, coherent as a topic. Everyking 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all subjective lists -Docg 10:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. The principle meaning of the list does not allow for this problem to ever be corrected. Jay32183 20:20, 1 November 2007 (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.