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 keep - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of programs broadcast by networks[edit]

This is the logical progression of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs, for which I voted "keep". However, I'm a much bigger fan of consistency than I am of any of these lists. The lists in question:

I stole this list from the previous AfD, so it may not be as inclusive as would be preferable. I'm starting this AfD backwards, making this page and then putting the templates on the articles, so if this doesn't seem to be working right, feel free to fix it. --Maxamegalon2000 03:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wait! There's more!

Though it probably doesn't make a difference, I should note that User:Nagle's vote below came before I made these additions to the list. --Maxamegalon2000 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even more:

That's enough additions for me. I should note that ~~both User:Trialsanderrors's vote and~~ User:Ardenn's vote below came before these additions to the list, although I doubt it would matter. --Maxamegalon2000 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Wikipedia is not TV Guide, and it isn't organized to be a good TV Guide. (Actually, some open source TV guide project would be useful, especially if it talked to PVRs. But this info won't help.) --John Nagle 03:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and similar lists as blatant violation of WP:NOT a tv guide. Good faith nomination by precedent and policy. ~ trialsanderrors 03:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC) / Amended 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination. The lists are perfectly relevant. Wikipedia is not paper. Ardenn 03:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Dionyseus 03:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And this is hardly a bad faith nomination! The issue was discussed before on an earlier, related AfD, which passed with precisely the same arguments as this one. What with WP:NOT, I entirely agree that articles like this oughta go. (And thanks for pointing this AfD out to me, Maxamegalon; otherwise my earlier "ditto" might've proved me a liar... =)) -- Captain Disdain 04:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to notify everyone who expressed interest in the precident set by the Sci Fi list's deletion. I'm guessing they'd have found it anyway, and that this will be a populous AfD regardless. --Maxamegalon2000 04:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "Wikipedia is not a TV guide" line is nonsense, as none of these lists purport to be a TV guide. Rather, they are simply an index of programs that have, at one time or another, been broadcast by a particular station, and provide a useful guide for people, say, interested in reading about programs by the BBC or ABC. Rebecca 04:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On one hand I'm tempted by deleting per WP:NOT and there is no need for these lists if we have proper categories. On the other hand, the categories are currently not developed enough to cover for the loss. By the way, there is no indication that this nomination is done in bad faith and I think that claim should either be retracted or carefully explained. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote for now. I agree these violate WP:NOT, but we could probably use some categories to replace these lists. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. I just read through WP:NOT again, and reread the relevant bits to make sure I didn't miss something. The "not paper" proviso seems far more relevant here than not "TV/Radio Guide" as written. None of these are remotely about what's on tv tonight, upcoming network promotions, etc., which is clearly the gist of that heading. These lists are better organized than the categories, and therefore more useful. I've only known of their existence for a day, and already I've found them educational and a potentially good research tool. (I've been trying to piece together what was on Nick at Nite in 1985-1986 for my own use.) The ones I looked at need filling out, not deletion. On the other hand, if categories could be rigorously created and populated with everything from every deleted list, right down to the subheadings, I would be satisfied. This seems unlikely to happen, however, because many older shows have no articles to this point. Incidentally, I find Maximegalon's conduct here very much in good faith and highly ethical. This AFD proceeds logically from the Sci-Fi one, and notifying people on both sides of the previous vote is as fair as can be. Thanks! Karen 05:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but salvage information if possible/necessary. Just because the lists as constituted aren't encyclopedic doesn't mean all of the information within them is de facto worthless. -- nae'blis _(talk) 06:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would they go? They're not TV guides - they're lists of programs over time, and merging them with the station pages would bloat those articles beyond belief. Rebecca 06:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Karen. The lists are useful collections of information and not random assortions. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 06:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Karen and Rebecca. Really now, they're really quite referential and definately helpful as they are: lists and guides. They shed light on a history within a channel by listing what was aired and still being aired and certainly not a mere television guide as TV Guide, by no means...

There are many lists and they do serve a purpose. Deleting them so swiftly without remarking on their potential if they're somewhat short of that would be unjust to those who have spent time compiling them (although I know effort doesn't necessarily qualify as being encyclopaedicly valueable, they knew the benefit of having these things to their corresponding channel lists)... Like the many editors of the forementioned AfD, who managed to sort things through well-enough considering.

Though, just one thing to keep in mind.... There should be some sources cited if there isn't already, since one can write something up for an obscure channel and the reader would not have anything to refer back onto to verify these listings. DrWho42 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. tmopkisn ^tlka 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yeah, WP is not paper, and someone, somewhere, might find these lists useful, someday. But utility is not the point, nor is storage. I'm seeing mostly nn items compiled into nn lists. Tychocat 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I'm seeing notable items (e.g., historically important tv shows), given additional notability by association with a particular network's history. Certain networks have cult status themselves, and these lists help show history and patterns of what the networks have done. Chronologies would be better, though.Karen 07:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I don't find these interesting" is not a reason to delete, Tychocat. As you can see here, many of us do find these lists useful, and your contention is thus void. Rebecca 08:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "I don't find these interesting" is not a reason to delete. I agree. My opinion to "Delete per nom" was meant to show that I find this stuff listcruft, and a violation of WP:NOT. I guess my opinion exists despite the void. Tychocat 08:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what categories are for. GassyGuy 08:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Partly procedural. This doesn't seem to be well covered by the AfD guide on bundled nominations (which I learned after I screwed up a bundled nom). None of the five bulleted examples are comparable to this situation and the bolded instruction that "if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't" suggests not bundling these. In any case, these sixty or so pages were the result of sometimes enormous effort, with some of them having over 250 edits in the history (like this one). If we're going to wipe out this much work, it ought to be in separate AfDs, or at the very least with more test cases. We owe that much to the people who've worked on these lists. I think they should also be kept on the merits per Karen's argument.--Chaser T 08:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was correct to bundle these, so that we have a uniform standard on these kinds of lists. --GunnarRene 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough.--Chaser T 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Make into categories, this would only delete the current schedules in the articles, which shouldn't be here anyway as wikipedia is not a TV guide. -- Koffieyahoo 08:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, did you read any of the articles before making this vote? There are no current schedules in any of these. Rebecca 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment How would you describe this then? ~ trialsanderrors 08:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take that back. There are about four of these. There are, however, many more that are not schedules. If your objection is to the schedules, then voting delete to the others is rather disingenuous. Rebecca 08:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You might want to cut down on the language. My delete vote is on policy grounds. ~ trialsanderrors 09:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let me rephrase: these pages are basically lists except for the schedules included in some of them. They should be deleted by WP:NOT. However, as plain lists by are quire useful. Hence, make a category for each of them and include the items from the relevant list. -- Koffieyahoo 09:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the categories would be deleted more easily than the lists. --GunnarRene 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that while some of these have current schedules, most of them provide organized information. See List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim, for example, which contains a notes column with useful information and grouped by theme. From WP:lists (but not WP:LISTS), a guideline for when to create lists, Lists on Wikipedia have three main purposes: Information, Navigation, and Development. Number 2 doesn't really apply anymore because of Categories, but for quite a few of these, either 1 (Info) or 3 applies very well. For info: The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. It's clear, for example, that the above mentioned Adult Swim list is a valuable information source, grouping information by theme, chronologically, and containing significant notes on the programs. Moreover, a number of these lists, like List of programs broadcast by Alpha TV, for example, clearly fulfill the development aspect of Lists cited by Wikipedia as just reason to create a list (Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.) All of these reasons should make it obvious why these lists should be kept. Some of them seem to be better replaced by Categories, but there are many lists proposed for deletion that clearly fulfill one or two of the above reasons to create a list as per accepted WP guidelines. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 09:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If these were all simply lists of programs I would have no issue saying "delete". However, as Yom notes, there is usually relevant additional information. For instance, List of programs broadcast by Global (a Canadian network which, like many Canadian networks, tends to buy the rights to more American shows than it can fit on) lists not only past, present, and future series, but also indicates the status of shows might air on that network depending on other factors. Others indicate what I consider relevant information about when programs aired, e.g. first-run vs. syndication. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - I also take issue with the application of "WP is not a TV guide" insofar as listing general information about a channel's current base schedule. I'm not saying we should have schedules for the likes of ESPN where the idea of a season schedule is essentially meaningless. But even we were to have 2006-07 United States network television schedule-type articles for all countries and channels covered, that's just the planned schedule as of the outset of the season. I consider the current main schedule of a channel, exclusive of any specials or special airings, not to be indiscriminate, and relevant to discussion of the competitive business of television. Whether or not they're relevant content in a "list" is debatable, although it seems preferable in contrast to a new "Current United States television schedules" page listing every network and cable channel known to man. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 10:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is not paper. WP 11:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists like these are an interesting way to track the history and current status of a network. I would like to see them updated more frequently, however. Kirjtc2 11:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make short style essay about what these lists should contain. As per WP:NOT they should not be used to tell when a show is on, or promotional information. These lists should be limited to historical information, while the website of the station can contain current events/shows. If I caught some glimpses of something on a channel a year ago, such a list is useful. --GunnarRene 11:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep. Reluctant because I don't believe lists of things actually belong on an encyclopaedia, but sadly there is enough precedent on here to keep these lists. As an aside, one of the things that bugs me the most is how so many of these lists are clearly incomplete yet adding more entries fails to add to their quality. Markb 12:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keepish I don't particularly like the listyness of this and these lists will eventually become horrendously over-populated. I'm also not keen to be associated with arguments based on wikipedia not being paper. However, it occurs to me though that there are encylopedic articles that could be created from them for instance Television programmes broadcast by the BBC in the 1990s and these could become the parent articles. MLA 13:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless some good samaritan(s) categorizes each and every one. But many TV shows never will have their own articles, either because of non-notability or because of lack of interest, so categorization of the entire list will be impossible. If someone wants a complete and comprehensive list, this is the only place he/she can look. AdamBiswanger1 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion. These articles represent the history of the broadcasters. Only policy issue brought up is WP:NOT TV guide, which is a seriously weak argument. It's too bad Sci-Fi was already deleted. - Wickning1 13:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should probably be taken WP:DRV if this nom closes keep.--Chaser T 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - On what grounds? There is nothing remotely resembling a consensus to delete at this stage. Rebecca 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think they mean the Sci-Fi article deletion - for consistency. Natgoo 09:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks. This AfD is long!--Chaser T 07:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; lists, unlike categories, serve an independent purpose and can be maintained at a single article. Smerdis of Tlön 14:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs. Or restore that. We should be consistent. Proto///type 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My emphasis --GunnarRene 02:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These lists are helpful. --Caldorwards4 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provide useful information about various networks, plus links to many shows. Casey Abell 17:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To be honest, although having a list of television shows that have been or will be broadcast in a region is not really what a traditional Encyclopedia was meant for - wikipedia is anything but a traditional encyclopedia. If we start pulling articles such as this because we feel that it is beyond what Wikipedia was meant for, then by the same means we need to pull articles on comics, trading cards, games, even theatre - because it is not what an encyclopedia is for. In other words, once we begin to restrict the content, where do we stop? I am extensively using the resource available for a website I am building that puts all current run TV shows into a game format; wikipedia is an invaluable resource for this purpose. I no longer have to go hunting each individual studio or network - I can use the wiki to find the majority of what I need in one easy spot. So in regards to whether this is useful content or not - I vote yes, because the way I see it - if even one person finds it useful - then it has served a purpose. --DragonChi 17:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I could see these lists being phased out in favor of categories, but many of the lists include shows for which there are no articles, which makes them useful. Deleting them would lose that information.MakeRocketGoNow 18:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't post the exact weekly schedule, obviously, so we are not a TV guide. But a list of programs based on their native network is useful. Mad Jack 19:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DragonChi and others. --CFIF (talk to me) 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:Yom pointed out lists are useful for information, navigation and development. In the case of List of programmes broadcast by RTÉ the article is very likely the only list of its kind on the Internet. It is jammed with redlinks, which wouldn't appear in a category. This page is probably the only thing that will motivate somebody to write an article about one of these programmes. These lists, by and large, are anything but indiscriminate. Ian Cheese 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless we are going to develop an new Wikipedia policy of not having manually-created and -maintained lists which duplicate categories, of which there are very many outside of this area of concern. Rlquall 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If there are notable programs then they will have articles. If categories are needed, let these people who are so adament about keeping these, less than fully useful in their current form, lists, start a Wikiproject to define and create the appropriate categories. Bejnar 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I honestly think the material is useful. No need to have the 'current daytime schedule' junk, however. List programs broadcast in the past, and link to their article pages. Its not by any means unmaintainable, and the articles it lists are parts of popular culture. Kevin_b_er 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful lists. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rebecca. Sinatra Fonzarelli 02:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (on the case of the ABS-CBN program list) It is a comprehensive list of information that can be useful for future reference. It does not contain any promotional materials or descriptions whatsoever. It only features the currents and the archives of the network's TV programs. Nothing too complicated. Kevin nico 02:35, 12 July 2006
- This was an IP. [1].--Chaser T 06:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - As many have attested here, these lists are certainly extremely useful, helpful and provide essential and indespensable information regarding television networks. - Ganryuu 06:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - as much as I hate lists of red links, these will be useful. Natgoo 09:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep! I agree with Ganryuu. --Ryanasaurus0077 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not really a vote, so please give your own reasons for keeping.
Strong Keep on all as a set but Relist borderline cases. In many cases it is desirable to find out which programs were broadcast on particualr networks. From an Australian point of view you can learn a lot by comapring ABC, SBS and commercial lists of TV programs. I think some Individual lists here may merit deletion, but the incusion of a few dozen lists/articles in one AfD makes this kind of awkward to discuss. -- Synapse 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure one can make an argument for an individual list that doesn't apply to all lists. Assumming that every network is deserving of a list, such an argument would refer to the quality of the individual list, and that's not what AfD is for ideally. I'm not sure that the quality of an individual list makes the list any more or less appropriate for this encyclopedia. --Maxamegalon2000 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Like someone else said, this isn't TV guide. Wikipedia doesn't need page after page of lists, saying what is on each channel. RobJ1981 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as text-book WP:NOT A7.7 fail. --DaveG12345 22:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that, if you had read any of the above discussion, the vast majority of these are not, in any way, a TV guide. If you're going to vote delete, at least come up with a reason grounded in logic rather than a misinterpretation of guidelines. Rebecca 23:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a personal attack? I guess I am forced to admire your commitment to this topic but please refrain from the realms of rank WP:AGF failure etc. Didn't read the above comments? Misinterpretation of guidelines? For one thing, I read the above. Secondly, I am "misinterpreting" a policy if anything, no guidelines here. Thirdly, I checked out the (several) articles of relevance to my geographical locale. Nothing about these articles convinces me that they could not (a) go on unchecked forever in themselves (b) proliferate in number to other TV stations worldwide ad nauseam, and (c) not be deleted without any harm done to Wikipedia. AfD is a place for discussion, is it not? Not just agreeing with everyone who previously commented, right? Well then. Still a delete IMO, sorry, per cited policy. --DaveG12345 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep lists of tv shows are important information as to past and present activity of the station and as to the station's style of show.-Sfvia2003~~
- Anonymous IP [2]. If you want to sign, sign as your IP. --GunnarRene 01:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep! I agree with Ganryuu.--Choptalk4165 02:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to imputiny as per DaveG12345. --Howard t he Du c k 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN should be merge with the main ABS-CBN article and should be modified to fit it with the ABS-CBN article... --peads 05:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful as tracking lists, to see what shows WP has/has not got articles on. Potentially useful as a finding resource, for people who know the network a show was on, but not its precise name. Useful as a guide to the kind of output the network showed. Regarding lists vs categories: there's a place for both - lists can be a lot more systematic, and show redlinks. So Keep (and re-instate the Sci-Fi channel, which appears to have been deleted on the admin's personal view, rather than the balance of the Afd). Jheald 07:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep The lists are quite useful in finding out what any particular network is showing or has showed over its history. To say is a TV guide is incorrect as it is not acting as a TV guide as it doesn’t show actual channel/time/date stuff. They do go to show who published or created any particular television show by this thinking, oher lists would also have to be deleted as well, it is the same thing as deleting the list of products offered by Microsoft, Boeing, Ford or Adobe. The lists are quite useful in seeing who created what and for comparing genres. A TV guide would show the time, date and channel any given program will be transmitted. This is more historical and cross-referencing here. Such information is not generally in a TV guide. The lists are a nice consolidation of information which one would otherwise have to look for in many different places. Bdelisle 01:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Being that television programming is quite ingrained in to the culture of many countries, and the at many of the programming can be comparative of other programming having such a list makes for a great index. Also like said above, keep the current lists and re-instate the Sci-Fi channel programming list. Truly encyclopedic? Probably not. Of interest to people? Seems to be. There is a lot of stuff that would not go in to a traditional encyclopedia in Wikipedia. That is what makes it so interesting. I believe that a lot of AfD is done over-aggressively, much seems to be based on opinion which often seems to be counter-neutral itself. If we are truly encyclopedic then 90% of the pages dealing with television shows, programs, and stations should be deleted; as should most books, movies, biographical stubs and company lists. Bdelisle 20:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, despite not having sources (or at least, the ones I looked at didn't have sources). Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if these continue to be... Shouldn't there be some sort of WikiProject keeping them in check as there'd be the WikiProject Television and WikiProject List of Television episodes? DrWho42 03:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good as a sub-project of WikiProject Television. --GunnarRene 15:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with suggestion that it would make a good sub-project of WikiProject Television. Bdelisle 20:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - I cannot see anyone ever wanting to consult these lists. BlueValour 17:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see people wanting to consult these lists; in fact, IIRC the whole idea of them was started precisely because people were adding exhaustive lists of past and present shows to the network articles themselves, which started to disrupt the quality of those articles. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on them, but I do find the "Wikipedia is not TV Guide" argument unconvincing, as that's not what these lists are trying to do. All in all, I don't see any reason to vote anything other than keep, although I could be swayed by a more convincing argument against them than I've seen here so far. Bearcat 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I consult these lists all the time. Plus, Wikipedia might not be a TV Guide, but a program cancelled years ago is hardly going to appear on television. I would continue, but Bdelisle sums up the rest of my argument pretty well. Jorcoga 11:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These lists can be very useful and after all, isn't Wikipedia a place for reference? I have used these before. --Bearbear 10:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Information shouldn't be erased from here just because it is plentiful. As was said, this isn't paper, and a helpful database isn't the same as a 'TV Guide.' I can't believe we are even having this discussion. --64.198.46.28 20:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - why are these pages gone when the consensus, to me a slightly newbie wikipedian seems to be on the side of keeping them? Confused as to process. BTW I think that the amount of posters/traffic/etc. would indicate that there is demand for this content, it's useful, it's needed, and it evolved through the wikipedian process. this is a repository for information of which all of these pages are exactly that. anyone using these pages as their local listings would be quite disappointed as it takes a while to get them updated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxdxt (talk • contribs)
keep please these lists are extremely useful Yuckfoo 06:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a category can complement but not replace a list with red links in it. Also, many of these lists are annotated with additional information that cannot be represented in a category page. Granted, some need significant cleaning and expanding to meet the standard of others, but on the whole they contain information that cannot be contained in a category, and would bloat both the list of categories at the bottom of the program articles and the relevent network articles if it was attempted to be merged there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete! These are extremely useful articles and there is no reason to delete them.Kogsquinge 07:17, 17 July 2006 (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.