543:
mean that WP:NOT does not justify this and other similar deletions. I honestly do not understand how someone can look at this list and think that it isn't indiscriminate. I don't get how someone can legitimately look at this list of however many hundred or thousand entries it is, gathering everything from The Alan Brady Show which was actually integral to its source program to something like
Admiral Baby from The Simpsons which was a two-sentence joke in a series that's generated hundreds of hours of content, and think that it's useful for research or encyclopedic or discriminating. Usually when a debate about something like this gets contentious I can still see some merit in the argument of the other side but here I can't.
542:
is more than enough to delete a list which seeks to capture every fictional television show from every medium with no regard to the importance of those shows either in the fictional universe it's from or outside it. Just because there is not a specific entry in WP:NOT that talks about lists does not
428:
then that would be a reasonable, focused list in line with WP:FICT and, most likely, a discriminated list in line with WP:NOT. A list of fictional television programs drawn from every source which includes such a program regardless of whether that program plays some actual roles within the real show
500:
counsel against lists from multiple source materials? I've read and re-read it and I can see nothing that even remotely backs up that assertion. I'll happily admit I'm wrong about this if you can point out the line or section you're referring to (I assume you don't mean the discussion page). I see
247:
Reasonable list, fictional television shows, if you see a problem with the current criteria, suggest a more limited one if you feel it is appropriate. That may be a sustainable argument. However, that doesn't mean deletion, just clean-up. Since I see the value of having such a collated list
474:
is policy and it prohibits indiscriminate lists by virtue of prohibiting indiscriminate collections of information. There is certainly a difference of opinion as to whether this list is indiscriminate which, frankly, I don't get because of the tremendously wide net the list casts in capturing
340:
are nt exhaustive and nothing in the document indicates that they are intended to be. Is "collection of every non-existent TV show ever mentioned in passing in some other medium" one of the listed points? No. Does that mean that the policy precludes such a collection from being considered an
423:
It does not suggest using one list to try to capture every single example of something fictional regardless of its importance to the work from which it's derived. WP:NOT instructs that
Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. If there were a
446:
supports my case - I'm saying that WP:NOT doesn't support your case either. And in the lack of policy on the matter, all we're left with is your opinion, my opinion and the community's opinion, which is looking more and more like it wants to keep these lists.
318:
criteria, or misapplying the "indiscriminate" guideline, none of the points of which apply here. Scope and discrimination of list seems perfectly acceptable to me, also seems pretty well-organised and annotated where appropriate.
215:
If people are actually searching by fictional show title, which is preferable: to be taken to a list of thousands of other shows or to be taken to an article either about the show (if it's notable) or to the source material?
201:
I see no need for the deletion of these lists. I find them useful for reference and I'm always looking for things to add to them. Sure, some may just be a passing reference by title, but some people do search for them.
127:- thoroughly indiscriminate list, collecting everything from shows which play a significant role in another show to one-off parodies to throwaway references to shows that never actually appear on-screen.
366:
90:
85:
117:
94:
140:. I'm not a big fan of such lists, but this one actually has some potential for usefulness. Needs to be organized, maybe improve upon the introduction, but it looks OK to me.
77:
279:
509:
be an explicit reference to lists. As I said, we'll have to rely on the community's judgement on a case-by-case basis - decisions I'll be happy to accept. --
526:
is the notion of creating lists across works supported. Every example is presented in terms of items within a work of fiction. The broadest capture that
429:
or whether the program is merely mentioned in a line of dialog in a single episode, never to be heard of again, does not conform to WP:FICT or WP:NOT.
585:
This, like many other lists in this group of nominations are good for both browsing & research. A reason for deletion is not: I'll never use it.
419:
I'm unsure as to what you think quoting that portion of WP:NOT does toward supporting your case. WP:FICT advises to use lists for minor items
591:
577:
565:
547:
513:
483:
451:
433:
410:
390:
373:
353:
323:
306:
289:
269:
252:
233:
220:
206:
191:
178:
164:
155:
144:
131:
59:
17:
475:
material, but trying to consense on whether the list is indiscriminate or not is not the same thing as the policy's not applying.
425:
81:
492:
I'm really sorry to keep harping on about this, and I promise I'm not being deliberately obtuse or obstructive here, but
342:
265:
73:
65:
606:
36:
605:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
479:
is a guideline for lists of fictional things and it counsels against lists across multiple source materials.
531:
249:
505:, but, perhaps unfortunately, policy is formed by consensus, and there is no consensus otherwise there
184:
53:
404:
is an incomplete guideline, which can or may never satisfy any objective standard for completeness
303:
188:
161:
175:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
535:
534:) "Counsels against" may be a bit on the strong side but not by much. But even setting aside
527:
523:
497:
476:
383:
539:
502:
471:
443:
401:
337:
333:
315:
299:
248:(especially when most of the entries do not deserve an article of their own), I say keep.
341:
indiscriminate collection of information? Of course not. As I noted in another of these,
562:
50:
544:
480:
430:
387:
350:
286:
217:
141:
128:
111:
574:
510:
448:
407:
370:
320:
261:
230:
203:
362:
152:
587:
530:
endorses is within works set within the same fictional universe (such as
229:
Personally I would like the option of all. We shouldn't have to choose.
345:
isn't prohibited by the letter of the policy. Do you think such a list
314:
another fictional list nomination and discussion citing non-existent
382:
Nonsense. Not a straw man argument at all. You're misunderstanding
367:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies
599:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
298:, thoroughly unencyclopedic and nonnotable topic, completely
332:
Responding only to the idea that "none of the points" of
107:
103:
99:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
399:Straw cat argument then. So, would you agree that
349:get deleted as indiscriminate and unmaintainable?
609:). No further edits should be made to this page.
573:Valuable list for reseaching fictional works.
8:
183:Your logic for keeping does not follow, per
538:I still contend that the plain language of
426:List of fictional television shows from X
278:: This debate has been included in the
260:well-organizaed and acceptable scope.--
470:But there isn't an absence of policy.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
442:OK, to clarify, I'm not saying that
343:List of all Americans who own cats
74:List of fictional television shows
66:List of fictional television shows
24:
561:. Good list, not indescriminate.
336:apply here...the points noted at
280:list of Lists-related deletions
1:
592:19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
578:15:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
566:14:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
548:23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
514:04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
484:15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
452:04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
434:15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
411:14:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
391:13:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
374:12:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
354:00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
324:13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
307:05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
290:04:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
270:03:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
253:03:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
234:23:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
221:23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
207:23:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
192:05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
179:18:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
165:05:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
156:17:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
145:15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
132:09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
60:05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
626:
421:within a work of fiction.
160:No reasoning? Guess not.
602:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
532:Horses of Middle-earth
501:what you mean about
174:It is interesting.
292:
283:
617:
604:
284:
274:
250:FrozenPurpleCube
115:
97:
56:
34:
625:
624:
620:
619:
618:
616:
615:
614:
613:
607:deletion review
600:
268:
88:
72:
69:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
623:
621:
612:
611:
595:
594:
580:
568:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
517:
516:
487:
486:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
437:
436:
414:
413:
394:
393:
377:
376:
365:argument. See
357:
356:
327:
326:
309:
293:
272:
264:
255:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
224:
223:
210:
209:
196:
195:
194:
169:
168:
167:
147:
122:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
622:
610:
608:
603:
597:
596:
593:
590:
589:
584:
581:
579:
576:
572:
569:
567:
564:
560:
557:
556:
549:
546:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
512:
508:
504:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
488:
485:
482:
478:
473:
469:
468:
453:
450:
445:
441:
440:
439:
438:
435:
432:
427:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
409:
405:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
392:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
372:
368:
364:
361:
360:
359:
358:
355:
352:
348:
344:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
317:
313:
310:
308:
305:
304:Axem Titanium
301:
297:
296:Strong delete
294:
291:
288:
281:
277:
273:
271:
267:
263:
259:
256:
254:
251:
246:
243:
242:
235:
232:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
205:
200:
197:
193:
190:
189:Axem Titanium
186:
182:
181:
180:
177:
173:
170:
166:
163:
162:Axem Titanium
159:
158:
157:
154:
151:
148:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
126:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
601:
598:
586:
582:
570:
558:
506:
493:
420:
400:
346:
338:WP:NOT#IINFO
311:
300:WP:NOT#IINFO
295:
275:
257:
244:
198:
176:TonyTheTiger
171:
149:
137:
124:
123:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
522:Nowhere in
185:WP:ILIKEIT
563:AndyJones
363:Straw man
172:Weak Keep
545:Otto4711
481:Otto4711
431:Otto4711
388:Otto4711
351:Otto4711
347:wouldn't
287:SkierRMH
218:Otto4711
142:23skidoo
129:Otto4711
118:View log
536:WP:FICT
528:WP:FICT
524:WP:FICT
498:WP:FICT
477:WP:FICT
384:WP:FICT
91:protect
86:history
575:Lumos3
540:WP:NOT
511:Canley
503:WP:NOT
472:WP:NOT
449:Canley
444:WP:NOT
408:Canley
402:WP:NOT
371:Canley
334:WP:NOT
321:Canley
316:WP:NOT
262:danntm
231:Tartan
204:Tartan
125:Delete
95:delete
507:would
496:does
494:where
112:views
104:watch
100:links
55:desat
16:<
583:keep
571:Keep
559:Keep
406:? --
369:. --
312:Keep
276:Note
258:Keep
245:Keep
199:Keep
153:Jcuk
150:Keep
138:Keep
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
51:Core
48:. --
46:keep
588:DGG
285:--
282:.
116:- (
447:--
386:.
319:--
302:.
187:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
266:C
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.