Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 in Polish television

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. Three relistings and I still don't see a consensus. I would strongly discourage a quick return trip to AFD for another go-round. We don't need a further month considering these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 in Polish television[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn’t really cover the subject stated in the title. It’s just a list of randomly chosen titles of programmes that aired that year in Polish television. Small chance it's a semi-hoax… Ambiroz (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Creator is blocked Brachy08 _(Talk) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Keep all The International sections should be trashed (it's children show cruft thrown in by the usuals), but it's highly doubtful any of the actual domestic entries are hoaxes at all and the nom is advised to be very careful about using that term in the future without any proof. Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What for? These articles list few shows suggesting that during a whole year merely six or seven programmes have aired, as if nothing really happened in the previous 30 years, which is highly misleading. They have absolutely no informative value and look like lists of what the author watched, not what the audience was following these years.
  Ambiroz (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lack of data is not an automatic disqualifier for an article, and it's natural for these non-English lists to be incomplete because Polish editors focus on pl.wiki, not here on en.wiki. I see no issue with the articles as-is and we are not going to attack any contributors here, nor are we going to show bad faith by calling their edits a 'semi-hoax'. Nate • (chatter) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you accept an article entitled “List of bones” (bone) with only seven or eight human bones itemised? When there easily could be over 200 of them, let alone other animals (assuming the whole information is available, as opposed to e.g. list of ancient rulers)? I wouldn’t say that’s an incomplete list, it’s rather a barely-started list.
  Ambiroz (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The edit button on each article is there for you to add entries to the list and you seem Polish-fluent. You can also easily draw from pl.wiki for what they have regarding television resources; you can't say there aren't any sources out there, but they just aren't in a language that we aren't usually drawing articles from. Nate • (chatter) 19:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m not going to do that, as these “articles” need to be written from scratch, there’s nothing in them right now, and there are loads of such pages for Danish, Spanish, Portuguese… television – and they all contain little to no information. The author, a currently blocked user did something badly and it needs to be re-done (more accurately: done).
  I didn’t say there are no sources available. But the blocked author clearly didn’t do any research whatsoever. In Polish Wikipedia these would be draftified in no time because of how tinnily they’ve been made (to be honest, I thought that was obvious).
  Ambiroz (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop needlessly attacking editors. I don't care that they're blocked now. If you decided not to do WP:BEFORE, then the onus is on you to defend your nomination, and 'original creator is blocked, delete' is in no way a proper deletion reason. If you refuse to fix the article yourself, then there's no way I can accept needless deletion when sources invariably exist in another language. Nate • (chatter) 21:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You keep on replying to less important parts of my comments – also I haven’t stated that the deletion should be made due to the fact that the author’s blocked. I’ll write it again then: these are just randomly chosen titles and they DO NOT (…) “provide an overview of television that year” [which they are meant to be doing], they are not even remotely close to doing so. [They are far below the minimum standard that a Wikipedia article should represent.] If you don’t want to delete them, draftify them until someone writes it better, because the way they look now shouldn’t be shown to the readers.
Ambiroz (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this meets GNG or WP:NLIST. That said, the same can be said about 2016 in German television or 2016 in French television, and many others.. will you nominate those for deletion too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you ask me to do it? / Czy to pytanie kierowałeś do mnie?
  Ambiroz (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ambiroz Yes, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  There’s much more of it: Danish, Spanish, Portuguese… times 20–30! All done by the same, blocked, user. Let’s wait for the result of Polish ones first.
  Ambiroz (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only know 2016 in French television from my own observation: that article is just a short random list with nothing to justify calling it notable. I'd certainly vote delete if it were proposed for deletion. Athel cb (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify – the only issue to me is the lack of sources, which can be improved, especially if collaborated with users from Polish Wikipedia. The lists are important as they are meant to provide an overview of television that year, which is a big part of culture. Doing a general overview (E.g. just "Television in Poland") would have too much information to pack into one. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not deflating the impact of Polish television on Polish culture, I’m just saying that these “lists” aren’t really lists. These are just randomly chosen titles put in some “articles”. They DO NOT, in your words, “provide an overview of television that year.” They are not even remotely close to doing so. A currently blocked user did this badly, he or she mass-produced tones of “articles” (for many countries) that have little to no information (and therefore value) and draftifying could be a solution, because the way it’s been done shouldn’t be shown to the readers.
Ambiroz (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As repeated above, I don't care if the blocked user stole the Mona Lisa. This article at the very least was constructed in good faith, and I do not feel any of the content meets the definition of a hoax, and I'm not willing to remove this article because you think it's a hoax, which it isn't, it's just incomplete. Nate • (chatter) 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - It's not possible to gain consensus to delete all of them and it makes no sense either to delete. Azuredivay (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm seeing No Consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 28 September 2023 (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.