Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends broadcast details
- 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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not tv show timetable guide. per WP:NOT. Upup33 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Definitely a WP:NOT issue. ju66l3r 23:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. JGardner 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Friends.--Notth 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Friends. --- RockMFR 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This was more than likely split from the Friends article, which is good, 'cause now we can zap this useless information altogether. WHO CARES??? Wavy G
- Delete per WP:NOT. —Hanuman Das 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As others have noted, this violated WP:NOT and is absolutely, 100% unencyclopedic. And please, do not merge this either, it needs to be removed entirely. --The Way 08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to refresh yourself with the rules here. You cannot delete an article simply because you feel it's "unencyclopedic". Dan100 (Talk) 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a laugable position. An article not being appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia is exactly the reason why articles are deleted from the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to refresh yourself with the rules here. You cannot delete an article simply because you feel it's "unencyclopedic". Dan100 (Talk) 19:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the Friends article is over-long and this is one of the spun-out sections. Not a WP:NOT violation as it's not a TV listings guide (can you see any times in it? No, thought not). Furthemore it seems perfectly verifiable, and does not seem to be original research, therefore I table that there are no grounds for deletion and that this is an invalid listing. Dan100 (Talk) 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just declare a listing invalid. And attempting to vote stack is a bad idea, too. -Amarkov blahedits 00:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge This is trivial content. No encyclopedic value. I'd rather see it deleted although I can see it merged back to the Friends article. On the other hand, it seems like the Friends article does not want it. Perhaps that's because it's considered too trivial... Pascal.Tesson 21:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or merge depending on what the editors of the topic think makes more sense), meets content policies; no reason has been given for deletion. JYolkowski // talk 23:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even most Friends fans would not care about this. Go start a Friends wiki if you want Friendscruft (that is a funny word). -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 17 November 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.