Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The List of Channel 4 programames

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 of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Channel 4 programames moved to List of Channel 4 television programmes

Comment I now realize that Channel 4 is a major network in the UK. However, as for these lists being standard practice, I have no respect for that practice. I found this article thorugh the random article link, thought it was an isolated problem, and nominated it. I would like to see the "several dozen more" which SimonP mentions deleted along with this one, but I recognize their nomination would be a futile effort. And, as I said, I disagree that this sort of list is sufficiently useful for its utility to be a positive attribute (and thus, to be relevant). The Literate Engineer 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and please do some research before nominating articles.
  List of programs broadcast by TV 3 in Norway, and several dozen more. The article does, of course, badly need to be renamed. - SimonP 05:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and rename as per standard format ie List of programs broadcast by Channel 4. Channel 4 is a major British broadcaster so this information is definitely notable. Capitalistroadster 05:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm actually tempted to vote delete on this because these list articles are woefully incomplete compared to the categories that cover the same thing. I know that I personally have added network show categories to at least a couple hundred shows and I really don't want to have to repeat myself and list these shows again in a list article. I will wait to see how other people vote and comment before casting my ballot. (PS I'm aware that at least some of the network list articles have additional information such as current programming grids, so I'm not saying they aren't worthy of having articles.) 23skidoo 06:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• We of course appreciate your work categorizing articles. Yes, this is messy and it needs cleanup. However, it does do something that categories won't; it lists programmes for which there are no articles yet. This list can also be annotated. It isn't now, but I hope it will be soon in the future as it is cleaned up. See
  WP:CLS for more info. Jacqui^★ 14:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's fair and certainly I wasn't intending to suggest categorizing is somehow better - it's just a matter of keeping the lists more or less the same. But in some respects I rendered my objection (such as it was) moot by mentioning that other network lists articles include additional info such as the program grids. Long story short, a keep vote (as if it needed it) with the suggestion the article be expanded like the others. 23skidoo 16:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, useful. Rename.
  讨论+extra) 08:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It isn't "indiscriminate" (most articles which are accused of this here aren't). This is one of the major channels in the UK. It already has a category, but it can't be enhanced with additional information as a list can be. CalJW 10:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful as I would want to know programmes that have been on Channel 4, and not all yet exist so Category is insufficient. --TimPope 12:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep renamed list. Verifiable, notable, useful. Jacqui^★ 14:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep as above. the wub "?!" 16:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although not in the state it's in at the moment. It needs to be tidied up somehow. I'll help if I can, but I'm not sure where to start... 9cds 18:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I cannot believe people are voting to keep this. First, the information will quickly pass its 'best before' date. Second, it's a sea of red links. Third, the first four blue links I clicked led to articles that were other than a description of the program. Fourth, this is utterly irrelevant to anyone outside the broadcast reach of this channel. Denni ☯ 21:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there are like 60 million people in broadcast reach of this channel. Once a program has been broadcast, the fact will remain true in perpetuity, and never need to be updated. Red links to notable topics encourage people to fill them in. AFD is not cleanup.
  Kappa 23:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - nothing wrong with a list. Zordrac 12:56, 1 December 2005 (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.