Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Sitcom 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. Grand master  ka  08:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ultimate Sitcom
Deletion nomination Here's the reason I gave the first time round in March 2006 which ended in no consensus: "This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines." Same this time around. Though I want to add in L'esprit de l'escalier (I was distracted and neglected to pay much attention at all towards the end of the first afd) a response to what during the first afd was JJay's reply to my rolling out the rating figures for this program (ratings which I believed to be not very impressive). JJay found those ratings to be impressive and said that we have articles for most of the other programs mentioned in my excerpt. I would now point out out that the one-off show The Ultimate Sitcom's (1.5m viewers) closest peers Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed (1.3m viewers) and Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death (2.1m viewers, a program about obese people who can't stop eating) still do not have their own articles, and I hope they never do. The only argument I see coming from the keep voters in the first afd was "the program was probably seen by a huge number of people". There are many trivial programs on TV which get low ratings that still translate to large numbers of people but are insignificant by encyclopedic standards. This is a one-off clip show which is one of these programs. Bwithh 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, the #1 show was Frasier.  Better than Fawlty Towers? Or, idunno, maybe Cheers?  JChap  (Talk) 02:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep despite the excellent nom, I'm gonna have to say keep per my previous comments in the 1st AfD- good article on a show seen by at least 1.5 million people during its 1st broadcast (and lots more, I assume, during rebroadcasts). I also note that Preying from the Pulpit, an article on a news segment broadcast on a local affiliate in 1993, was kept on AfD a few months back. If we are going to keep articles on news segments that never aired nationally or received major media coverage, I can't justify deleting this. --JJay 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. It has a page at IMDB and was seen by 1.5 million people, which makes me hesitant to delete, but then again, not everything listed at the specialized film and television site IMDB is necessarily notable enough for Wikipedia. The fact that it was a one-time broadcast makes its notability even more important, which isn't borne out by its 152 unique google hits (including people using the general phrase "the ultimate sitcom." &mdash; ዮም  |  (Yom)  |  Talk  • contribs • Ethiopia 02:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft on television is still listcruft  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 03:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question - I'm not sure what the dicdef of listcruft is, but isn't the problem with listcruft that it is difficult to maintain? Surely a static list thereby isn't listcruft? Essexmutant 06:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. That it has not even received 5 votes in its IMDB page just shows how unnotable it is.   Dionyseus 04:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Programs like The Sky at Night and BBC News at 10 o'clock haven't had 5 votes either ,. Does that mean they are nn? Essexmutant 07:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not just listcruft, but non-authoritative listcruft. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: how can it be non-authoritative if it was voted on by industry insiders? Essexmutant 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a comprehensive survey of industry insiders. It's just the group of insiders (including actors, not just writers) who agreed to be on the show. It's also dubious how much the few Americans know about British sitcoms (and how much the British know about US sitcoms), and no other country's programs seem to have even been considered. Bwithh 12:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article.
 * Keep per JJay. Not sure if you saw this, but it certainly wasn't just a clip show. They spent time talking about how the insiders made their decisions, and talking about how the insiders themselves were selected. Essexmutant 06:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I said that it was a clip show with talking heads. Bwithh 12:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep per JJ. It is plenty notable, and remember that including someone else's value judgments does not constitute a value judgment on the part of editors. AdamBiswanger1 14:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Show was entertainment not serious research. Big brother episode 112,345 was also seen by 1.5 million people. Mention of vote might be appropriate on each sitcom article instead. Major interest is in list of sitcoms, which should be added to a list somewhere. Stephen B Streater 08:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've added the four missing ones to List of sitcoms. Stephen B Streater 08:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic --Amists 10:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just another clip show of no particular noteworthiness. -- GWO
 * Delete per nom. -- MightyWarrior 15:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No importance, no influence, no global perspective, no article. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and listcrufties. Zos 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 23:27, 14 July 2006 (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.