Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films aired on Nickelodeon

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. Cirt (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films aired on Nickelodeon[edit]

Listcruft per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, similar article was deleted two years ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of movies broadcast by Nickelodeon) Caldorwards4 (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a previous nomination for this article under another title after this was originally deleted which resulted in a keep vote. My argument then was for deletion based on the fact that theatricals were inserted in the list with the network's original films, and that issue at least has been rectified. However, I now vote delete based on the fact the entire list is unsourced and it has not been connected in any way to any article according to the list of links, as has been the problem with many of the Nickelodeon block articles. Nate • (chatter) 07:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It easily could be sourced. Essentially, this is what a list of this sort should be-- films that were specifically produced for the Nickelodeon network, along with the date that the films premiered. Generally, any cable network's original films will attract higher ratings than the regular programming, and in the case of Nickelodeon, they have a lot more advance promotion. I see this as no different than a list of films attributable to an independent production company. Kind of ironic that "Nickelodeon original movies" included films that were re-run for the umpteenth time (and thus were not original), while "List of films aired on Nickelodeon" doesn't make clear that these are films that were produced by Nick. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the sources are your only concern, you should first tag the article for giving time to other editors to fix the issue before taking last case measure of deletion. However I agree the article should contain references. Kasaalan (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, don't the wikilinks provides enough reference for dates or if they have been aired on Nickelodeon or not. You should first check and answer that question. Kasaalan (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inward links to movie articles as sources don't count at all. They must be sourced by reliable outside sources. Nate • (chatter) 19:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read all inline links to movies to check if the inline movie articles contain reliable sources for nickelodeon airing or not before making deletion nomination, or just assuming the list article don't have references so inline movie articles too don't have reliable sources.

Also if inline articles don't have reliable references for nickelodeon airing, how info in their articles can stay. You should first deal with inline articles before deleting the list. Kasaalan (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to talk about this article, not individual articles linked to. See my argument below; if a WikiProject devoted to the network can't muster any kind of rescue effort to convince us to save it, I doubt many others who aren't network geeks will want to do so either. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a list of things that aired on particular channels, even if WP:V could be met. WP:NOTDIR applies. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major network, and an appropriate list to get the information together; should all be sourceable easily enough.. No reason given why this in inappropriate. DGG (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list, if completed, would be somewhere over 10,000 entries (though, of course, not 10,000 entries covered by any reliable source except each and every TV guide since 198x (whatever year this network went into business). Nothing generates "encyclopedic notability" for the topic films aired on Nickelodeon. It's an aspergers/train-spotting type exercise to even try.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always prefer not to read a long list if it hurts your eyes. If some users are willing to spent their time on building a 10.000 entry list, it will save all other readers of wikipedia to do any research like that when they need the info. Kasaalan (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to invoke WP:WHOCARES here, but really going by an editor count for this article (not counting the IPs adding cruft and vandalism) and the lack of links into it, there are very few who care. This article is linked to much of nothing at all, just several redirects to possible alternate names for this article (which do have four links from movies, but it should be much more than that.) WP:NICK, the project that is supposed to be responsible for Nick articles is notorius for building articles without any kinds of sources and filled with line upon line of plot geekery the average fan really doesn't care about and is later easily winnowed out by experienced editors. They have not had a member respond to your request for comment, and nobody came forward when I asked for comment on a deletion vote on another topic, which is incredibly apathetic for even the lowest-tier Project (and because of this, another editor declared it in an inactive state days ago). Wheras articles on subjects involving Cartoon Network and Disney Channel in my experience don't have these kinds of issues (and the Disney Channel Original Movies article at least has several sources), these Nick articles are created haphazardly without organization. As for research, many other fansites can provide much better and detailed information about their movie history than seems to be provided here. Nate • (chatter) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies and time. You may know, WP:WHOCARES also refers to "Delete Who cares about this stuff anyway" approach. Also I agree, a project should interested in their articles one way or another, yet some projects are active, some others not. It is also same for wiki environment project for example. But their efforts made others to reach info, without wasting time on research, and when they do it allows them to improve article even further. Also it leads a good directory categorization for similar relevant conent articles. Moreover Disney Channel Original Movies article has exact same issue, which only quotes from a single reference from his own site, rest of references are there for view counts of Highest rated Disney Channel Original Movie premieres. I added the article to disney channel article now it has 1 more link.

Do I like the channel, No except 1-2 series they publish
Do I care for article in particular, Not really much right now, but I may spend various hours of research time for improving articles that I don't care but others may care
Do I find it useful, It may be useful for some other people interested in the area, I also may care about the info in the future if I get interested, moreover I find verifiable list articles useful in general, they doesn't hurt anyone or any policy actually
Do deleting the article helps anyone on earth, Simply no.
Can the article will be improved in the future, Yes.
Can the article will be improved easier in the future if we not delete it, Certainly Yes.

If fansites has much more reliable information, we can use them as a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also debating with 4 people for article deletion is not helpful at all, the more views the better. Kasaalan (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article can very much be sourced. -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 21:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. What is so notable about this particular channel and its films? This isn't an encyclopedic list in its current state (unreferenced, no notability shown, no context) and I don't know how this could be turned encyclopedic. Even with the references in place it would need to be shown that the topic of the collection of these films means something to the encyclopedia. We aren't an indiscriminate collection of information, nor are we a directory. Them From Space 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Like many lists this needs more context of why should anyone care. Nickelodeon is seen as a gateway to young consumers - preteens and children and is considered commercially-ladened but family-friendly fodder. Ergo the lede should be expanded to explain these points as well as relevant, perhaps obvious, ideas about reaching certain subsets of consumers. How the movies were billed - world premiere, etc - and hyped in contrast to other networks or movies. Also did this change over time and how. In its current form however it is an acceptable list and certainly can be improved. -- Banjeboi 23:00, 15 June 2009 (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.