Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (UK & Ireland)

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 KEEP. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Cartoon Network (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

Delete per ~~WP:NOTLINK.~~ teh spirit of WP:NOT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does not violate this policies there nothing on the page that is linking apart from internal links to other articles which is encouraged by MOSAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the second point at WP:NOTLINK: "Mere collections of internal links". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this sort of shit doing in the middle of an article namespace page: "This is a list of movies that have aired since 1993. Please put known movies in the list." (my highlighting). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you have a problem with the shit as you put it then take it to talk, the list is not collection of internal links, it a list of programs which has the internal link to the show, end of the day it does not violate the policies no matter how you dress itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a collection of INTERNAL LINKS. (or not a hell of a lot more). Take a look at the list. What the fuck is it for? Readers don't need this sort of useless rubbish. As for the shit that I highlighted I would not piss around with talking about it on the talk page I would just go ahead and delete the line in question. You know - WP:SOFIXIT and all that. But I want to have the whole page deleted, not just some stupid fucking comment left by an editor saying "Please put known movies in the list". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because I don't think a valid reason for deletion has been stated. The portion of WP:NOTLINK that Alan Liefting is referring to specifically says it doesn't apply to lists. Calathan (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever... I have amended my reason. Is your "keep" vote still valid? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We usually have these sorts of lists. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean we should keep them. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content could certainly be culled and the crufters as usual have made a mess of things (I would kill the movie section right off; zero sources and it's easily assumed that they carry all Warner Bros.-Hanna Barbera films, and I have addressed the nom's concern by killing that line and the as-per-usual unsourced "Upcoming" line which is just WP:ADVERT material and has no place in a historical article). However the nominator has not stated a specific reason for deletion and I'm unsure why deletion is being asked for besides a non-specific cite to a policy. Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need policies or guidelines to say that it is a useless page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you at least need a good explanation why it should be deleted. "Sprint of WP:NOT" tells me nothing. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beep bleep beep bleep, Ring, ring. "Hey Mr Judgement. Alan again. What do you think of this pathetic list on WP?" "Giday Alan. Yeah, Good call on that one. Get it? Good judgement? Phone call? Ah, never mind..." -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to up my rationale to a Speedy Keep if you keep up this behavior and refuse to take your own nomination seriously. You've been here for years so you know better, and peppering the nom with profanity-laced responses certainly isn't changing anybody's mind at all. It's a simple question; why do you want this to be deleted? Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What! You will change you !vote because of my behaviour? That is a bit WP:POINTY isn't it? And what difference will that make "Keep" vs "Speedy keep"? Anyway, the list: it is a bunch of links without any sort of annotation worth noting, it is of such low utility to the readership that the effort to maintain and update it is not warranted, there is a need to focus our efforts on "decent" stuff, there is a need to focus on the backlog, etc. And I as far as I know all of Wikipedia is not censored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not POINTy; on principle I refuse to support nominations with nominators so intent on a delete vote they go off on those against them, or use profanity, which yes, we're not censored, but most nominations are also civilly conducted. As for the topic at hand itself, the average reader isn't going to care a whit about programming on this channel, nor need it in list form, but the expectation with television articles has a 'List of...' article included with most networks for those that are interested. This one just requires sourcing and culling, that's all, not outright deletion. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its nothing personal. Sorry is if it seems that way. I am getting angry with all the rubbish I am seeing at Category:Articles with missing files (and a lot of other reasons). Maybe it is that time of the month. Oops, shouldn't have said that. I am a feminist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) I personally hate lists like this, and if I were in the mood to say screw community consensus I hate this stuff, I'd vote delete, but it meets multiple criteria at WP:LISTPURP, and it's useless is not a valid argument. I don't think saying that it "violates the spirit of WP:NOT" is valid, either, in that that's an incredibly vague argument. WP:NOT lists a number of largely unrelated (that is, not connected to an overarching theme or "spirit") and very specific things that Wikipedia isn't. It's also a living thing, so it can change to include something reflective of this particular list, but I don't think it currently covers this list, and unless the nominator can effectively argue that it does I'm not inclined to agree with the rationale. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But AfDs are used to shape community consensus. Consensus is not permanent so don't feel you have to go with the status quo. If WP did not change we would still have CamelCase. LOL! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha :). Look, shoot me a message when you have raised a militia to overthrow the fraudulent tyranny of WP:LISTPURP and I will join you at the front. See? Even when I'm considering being a revolutionary I'm a status quo follower; what a disgrace. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we only keep such lists for programming that originates on a given network. That certainly doesn't apply to any of the listed movies or syndicated reruns, and I'm not sure it applies to any of the listed series, given that this is a foreign subsidiary of an American network. How does any of this programming differ from the flagship Cartoon Network channel? Is any of it created for the UK market? In its current form, it is certainly indiscriminate. Is there a core to this list that is not? postdlf (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole fucking festering category of this sort of crap! See Category:Lists of Cartoon Network television series, including a miss-categorised talk page. But I daren't touch that of course. Might get blocked again if I fix it! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup to ensure all entries in the list are non-redirect articles, and that the list entries come from a reliable source (examples Official Site The Guardian) --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 6 December 2012 (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.