516:, including every fictional show that has a non-trivial role in notable fiction. Probably the article needs expansion, rather than trimming. The individual fictional shows need only be significant within the fiction, not independently notable. This is the standard criterion for fictional elements included in a list like this. They need not be sufficiently notable as independent fictional elements---that might be needed perhaps to justify an independent article on each fictional show, but every item of content in a Knowledge (XXG) list need not as a general rule be notable--that's the criterion for articles, not individual pieces of article content.
317:. It is narrowly defined, and the concept seems to be notable enough. The current article is a nightmare, and it would seem that if you can't source EACH entry, they shouldn't be there, which would make it virtually a blank page and no longer interesting or useful. As it is, there is no way for the article to exist unless it is
478:
does not have to be reproduced entirely in another source to suitable, as long as the overall concept of fictional ducks is notable. It's no excuse for having a list where 90% of the entries are non-notable, which is one of the main problems of this list. If we trimmed it to the notable shows within
543:. Merely existing does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There appears to be no criteria for inclusion in the list itself, which lists obscure non-notable fictional television shows with ones that show some notability and that makes it fail the criteria of
289:
I will support keeping this if you can produce evidence that good sources exist for the vast majority of these shows. As far as I can see, there are one or two notable ones, and plenty which have received no more attention in reliable third party sources than a single sentence. The
Observer article
101:
96:
91:
86:
351:
is one of my favorite examples, but there are many others that demonstrate that fictional TV shows can take on a life of their own, and become characters in themselves. A list of them (although very different than the current mess) seems appropriate.
264:
source establishes the notability of the topic and I have just added another good one. The ease with which one can find good sourced content for this indicates that the topic has not yet been given good attention. It didn't even mention
195:
81:
539:
because it is trivial, non-encyclopedic, and not related to human knowledge. The very few references provided within the article do not constitute significant coverage, so the list does not meet the
325:
notable by subject matter, keeping an article that will have to be almost blank to pass guidelines, or keep an article that is useful but fails every guideline on
Knowledge (XXG). A bitter pill.
395:
189:
321:. There are lots of reasons why the article is a bad idea, although they are more of an issue of editing, not criteria. In short, I'm stuck between deleting an article that I think
129:
124:
133:
377:
we have what should be a brief article about the concept, with a few sourced examples. In any case, the current list is garbage. I'm still looking, but I don't expect much. -
116:
444:
and trim as desired. The sources in the article establish notability of the concept, and once that's been satisfied, notability of individual entries does not matter per
156:
551:. If individual fictional shows are notable on their own, they should have their own article, not serve as an excuse for a list of non-notable fictional TV shows.
418:
560:
527:
504:
461:
433:
410:
386:
361:
334:
303:
282:
251:
64:
547:. There are no sources that show that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. This situation makes the list a
210:
177:
17:
171:
167:
120:
217:
112:
70:
575:
36:
492:
495:
is a notable topic, but that doesn't mean that we need a list of every person who can be verified to practise it. --
347:
for the reasons I listed. The current article is riddled with flaws, but the concept itself is notable and valid.
480:
291:
233:
183:
574:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
278:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
500:
488:
475:
299:
247:
238:. Due to the lack of secondary sources covering most of the fictional shows, much of this page constitutes
357:
330:
58:
270:
269:, who appears in numerous sources when one looks for material about the show-within-a-show format. Our
313:
This is a difficult call. I can see why the list would be interesting, informative, and all the other
487:, we don't have listings of non-notable things where the overriding concept is notable. Imagine the
314:
382:
274:
203:
548:
484:
227:
496:
457:
295:
243:
544:
536:
429:
406:
353:
326:
50:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
556:
540:
471:
445:
273:
is to keep weak and neglected articles in mainspace so that they may be further developed.
348:
318:
239:
378:
449:
523:
453:
452:. Having said that, there really ought to be a better way to organize all of this.
425:
402:
150:
552:
266:
518:
102:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (5th nomination)
97:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (4th nomination)
92:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (3rd nomination)
87:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows (2nd nomination)
242:. Previous AFD (a year ago) resulted in no consensus either way.
568:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
290:
is perhaps a good source if one was to write an article about
448:, such that a primary source for each will adequately meet
230:, as it is a list of generally non-notable plot elements
82:
Articles for deletion/List of fictional television shows
396:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
146:
142:
138:
202:
479:
shows, it would simply better to have an article on
294:, but it can't be used to justify the whole list. --
343:After chewing on the idea for a day, I have to say
216:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
578:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
417:Note: This debate has been included in the
394:Note: This debate has been included in the
419:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
416:
393:
535:The list does not meet the criteria of
79:
549:non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
77:
228:Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory
113:List of fictional television shows
71:List of fictional television shows
24:
470:I think you are misinterpreting
545:notability for stand-alone list
1:
541:general notability guideline
537:appropriate topics for lists
474:. All NNC means is that the
493:Islam in the United Kingdom
595:
481:Fictional television shows
292:Fictional television shows
234:Fictional television shows
232:where the linking concept
571:Please do not modify it.
561:19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
528:09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
505:06:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
462:05:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
434:00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
411:00:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
387:23:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
362:12:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
335:13:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
304:14:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
283:13:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
252:11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
65:23:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
489:List of British Muslims
476:List of fictional ducks
76:AfDs for this article:
491:under your criteria.
315:wrong reasons to keep
226:This page violates
436:
422:
413:
399:
319:original research
240:original research
586:
573:
423:
400:
221:
220:
206:
154:
136:
63:
61:
56:
53:
44:The result was
34:
594:
593:
589:
588:
587:
585:
584:
583:
582:
576:deletion review
569:
349:All My Circuits
163:
127:
111:
108:
106:
74:
59:
54:
51:
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
592:
590:
581:
580:
564:
563:
530:
510:
509:
508:
507:
465:
464:
438:
437:
414:
390:
389:
367:
366:
365:
364:
338:
337:
307:
306:
286:
285:
275:Colonel Warden
271:editing policy
236:is not notable
224:
223:
160:
107:
105:
104:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
73:
68:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
591:
579:
577:
572:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
531:
529:
525:
521:
520:
515:
512:
511:
506:
502:
498:
497:Anthem of joy
494:
490:
486:
482:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
466:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
420:
415:
412:
408:
404:
397:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
368:
363:
359:
355:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
308:
305:
301:
297:
296:Anthem of joy
293:
288:
287:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
249:
245:
244:Anthem of joy
241:
237:
235:
229:
219:
215:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
169:
166:
165:Find sources:
161:
158:
152:
148:
144:
140:
135:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
72:
69:
67:
66:
62:
57:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
570:
567:
532:
517:
513:
441:
374:
370:
354:Dennis Brown
344:
327:Dennis Brown
322:
310:
261:
257:
231:
225:
213:
207:
199:
192:
186:
180:
174:
164:
45:
43:
31:
28:
311:Observation
190:free images
373:- IMO, at
267:Jack Benny
485:WP:NOTDIR
426:• Gene93k
403:• Gene93k
379:SummerPhD
454:Jclemens
262:Observer
157:View log
371:Comment
196:WP refs
184:scholar
130:protect
125:history
553:Jfgslo
533:Delete
483:. Per
472:WP:NNC
446:WP:NNC
168:Google
134:delete
524:talk
211:JSTOR
172:books
151:views
143:watch
139:links
16:<
557:talk
514:Keep
501:talk
458:talk
450:WP:V
442:Keep
430:talk
407:talk
383:talk
375:best
358:talk
345:Keep
331:talk
300:talk
279:talk
260:The
258:Keep
248:talk
204:FENS
178:news
147:logs
121:talk
117:edit
60:shoe
55:lake
52:file
48:. -
46:keep
519:DGG
218:TWL
155:– (
559:)
526:)
503:)
460:)
432:)
424:—
421:.
409:)
401:—
398:.
385:)
360:)
333:)
323:is
302:)
281:)
250:)
198:)
149:|
145:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
123:|
119:|
555:(
522:(
499:(
456:(
428:(
405:(
381:(
356:(
329:(
298:(
277:(
246:(
222:)
214:·
208:·
200:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
175:·
170:(
162:(
159:)
153:)
115:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.