Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Channel 8 programmes
- 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Channel 8 programmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Delete Granted Wikipedia is not paper, but do we need to be the t.v. guide for a an apparently defunct television station in Singapore? —Gaff ταλκ 07:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Singapore still exists. Best username yet 08:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an AfD discussion for Singapore.—Gaff ταλκ 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, that was a stupid brain-fart style comment. I meant the TV station still exists, and so it seems reasonable to keep this page (or maybe merge it) while the timetable remains accurate. Best username yet 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - indiscriminate collection of information; serves no real encyclopedic purpose. --Haemo 08:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia Is Not the Radio Times (or even its Singaporese equivalent) -- simxp (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, with MediaCorp TV Channel 8 article after a major cleanup. Some parts of the article are relevant in relation to the channel 8 article, however a list of programmes doesn’t stand by itself. Full of red links and messy. ~ SEEnoEVIL punch the keys 09:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. Otto4711 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per past precedent. If there's anything on this page that reads like a television program, feel free to edit it. This seems to be a major channel in Singapore, as much of a content producer as anything. Therefore, it should be kept. FrozenPurpleCube 17:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - that AFD is just shy of a year old, and consensus can change. Otto4711 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence that consensus has changed, nothing in this discussion even referenced the previous discussion. Since the reasons given then are just as valid today as then, I don't see any reason to change consensus either. If you want to convince me consensus has actually changed, you'll at least have to comment on it regarding the previous consensus. As far as I can tell though, everybody here was ignorant of that discussion. Do you have a response to any of the arguments put forth there? FrozenPurpleCube 01:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided --- projectify?. Right now virtually all the programs are redlinks (except for the accidental lazy links to stuff sharing the same titles), but I guess the question is how many are notable. If a major portion are, the list might be useful for development purposes by one WikiProject or another (whoever covers TV dramas, for example). For the most part, Singapore TV dramas don't achieve much notability beyond the local market (I used to live an hour's bus ride from Singapore, and even I haven't heard of many of these shows), but there are exceptions. cab 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lack of links for programs is a reflection *not* of lack of notability or sources, but a systemic bias directly related to them not being popular in mainstream English-speaking countries. As such, I don't think whether or not the program has articles can be used to weigh whether or not it's notable. FrozenPurpleCube 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes I understand, my point is not only that articles haven't been written yet, but that for a large number of the local productions, articles can't be written due to a lack of sources, which limits the usefulness of the list as a development resource. I don't hold any unreasonable expectation of Mandarin dramas having been covered by WP:RS in the English-speaking world, but plenty haven't been covered in the Chinese-speaking world either. WP:CSB isn't an excuse for keeping non-notable stuff, especially from a country with as widespread Internet access as Singapore. E.g. Kopi-O, which is fairly recent (2002) but has only 187 GHits in Chinese [1]. Even many of the bluelinks don't contain assertions of notability, just links back to the producer's website. To give an imperfect US analogy, if a TV show never made it out of the Atlanta metropolitan area (4.1 million population in 2000), I suspect a lot of editors would question whether it was notable enough for inclusion here. WP:LOCAL might sort of apply. Like I said, I'm not really sure about this one. cab 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, some might indeed not qualify. Some OTOH, might. Whether or not any of those shows should have articles I don't know. However, this isn't a discussion about those shows, but rather about the channel's own productions/lineup. As none of the previous comments even seemed aware of the prior discussions regarding channel productions, I don't believe that they properly considered the situation. If any of the comments had been directly on the subject of this channel's programs not being notable because this channel isn't notable, that'd give them some weight. But that's not what anybody has done.
- Comment Yes I understand, my point is not only that articles haven't been written yet, but that for a large number of the local productions, articles can't be written due to a lack of sources, which limits the usefulness of the list as a development resource. I don't hold any unreasonable expectation of Mandarin dramas having been covered by WP:RS in the English-speaking world, but plenty haven't been covered in the Chinese-speaking world either. WP:CSB isn't an excuse for keeping non-notable stuff, especially from a country with as widespread Internet access as Singapore. E.g. Kopi-O, which is fairly recent (2002) but has only 187 GHits in Chinese [1]. Even many of the bluelinks don't contain assertions of notability, just links back to the producer's website. To give an imperfect US analogy, if a TV show never made it out of the Atlanta metropolitan area (4.1 million population in 2000), I suspect a lot of editors would question whether it was notable enough for inclusion here. WP:LOCAL might sort of apply. Like I said, I'm not really sure about this one. cab 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lack of links for programs is a reflection *not* of lack of notability or sources, but a systemic bias directly related to them not being popular in mainstream English-speaking countries. As such, I don't think whether or not the program has articles can be used to weigh whether or not it's notable. FrozenPurpleCube 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FrozenPurpleCube 15:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a TV guide and besides a good many of the programmes quoted are not in themselves notable. Therefore it would be much better to have a Category: Channel 8 Programmes (or suchlike) then when there are articles written on notable programmes they can be grouped together accordingly. A1octopus 11:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So, have you looked at the previous discussion I mentioned? A TV GUIDE is something that tells you what programs are on when, in a current form, not something that lists what television programs a given content producer has made. FrozenPurpleCube 17:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article is not a TV guide, it is a notable list of programs. Many similar lists exist (see {{Programs}}). --musicpvm 01:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, this article MUST be kept as it actually lists down the programmes in the past and it also shows the telecast dates and times. This article MUST be kept. Furthurmore, there are many other articles like this, such as the Hong Kong TVB dramas list. fatty 00:03, 9 June 2007 (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.