Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional television stations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 to delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fictional television stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
Delete another indiscriminate trivia list. Otto4711 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perfectly good list that provides far more information than a mere category could ever hope to do. Jcuk 18:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Another list which is useful and interesting. I really don't see why you want rid of them. Tartan 23:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic is so interesting, why isn't there an article on Fictional television stations? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely unsourced article. Note that there is no article on Fictional television stations. In general, there should not be a "list of X" unless there is a valid, encyclopedic article on X. Fictional television stations is not an encyclopedic topic, so neither is a list of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, WP:NOT#IINFO, just because these fictional television stations exist (sort of) doesn't mean Wikipedia has to list them. "Useful" and "interesting" are not valid keep reasons. These are of questionable notability besides. Axem Titanium 05:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I thought I had weighed in here as well, but I guess I missed it. Complaints about sourcing are meaningless, if a given entry can't be sourced, it can be removed. Others easily can be sourced though, as their information is already found on Wikipedia. If it doesn't belong here, then it should be removed from there as well. Complaints about no article existing on fictional television stations misses the point that articles do exist for both television station and for the media these fictional stations appear in. See also other nominations on this same subject for further argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep annotated and useful as a research/navigational tool and not indescriminate and squarely within WP:LIST and lots of information would be lost to the project if deleted and not redundant with a category and blah-di-blah-di-blah AndyJones 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.Lumos3 15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of "It's useful" here, it seems... may I suggest a reading of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But remember it is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Tartan 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of "It's useful" here, it seems... may I suggest a reading of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Otto4711 and I are having a major disagreement across several AfDs over the definition of "indiscriminate information" and other aspects of policy. I don't agree with such subjective application or interpretation of vague guidelines as a deletion criterion, and in such cases I'm happy to bow to the community's wishes to delete if general consensus considers a list too obscure or too broad. In this case, I believe the inclusion criteria are sound, the article is well maintained and annotated, so I suggest keep. --Canley 06:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping. "Useful" is also not a reason unless accompanied by a reason why its useful. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. WP:NOT explicitly applies here. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.