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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Norwegian television series[edit]

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

List of guess what? Appears to be in Norwegian, and although various people have tried to do something about or with it, it's not improving. To my mind, it's a hopeless task for anyone to maintain and looks a bit like listcruft. Prod has been declined (twice). but the decliner hasn't done anything to sort the problem. Is it notable, and will anyone maintain it? I've looked through the dates of the series given, and either the Norwegians stopped producing TV series in about 2009, or no-one IS maintaining it. (Don't look at me - I don't even watch Brit TV...) Peridon (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm struggling to see a good argument for deletion here. It deals with a non-English language topic so will get less interest and input because of that, but if it isn't being maintained that doesn't really have any bearing on notability. The second prod was not valid, and it isn't obligatory to explain why a prod was removed or to improve the article when doing so. Worst case would, I would have thought, be to reduce the list down to the tv series with articles. --Michig (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go along with that reduction - Wikipedia 'lists' are really indexes to available articles rather than lists of everything. I do realise that the second prod was invalid. and I've notified both prodders and the decliner about this AfD. Peridon (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revert back to the simple unannotated list from Special:Permalink/335993199, prune its red links and merge in new blue links from the current page. Leave out all other information, because that looks like WP:OR and is unsourced anyway. I'd be happy to do this, just ping me when the AfD is over. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lists of these television series are generally considered notable. I agree with some of the issues with this particular list, but the article itself should remain. Introducing sources would be good and a general tidyup. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing a valid reason to delete this. Yes, it could a lot be better, but then so could much else. Edwardx (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is kept, it needs a lot of editing. The genres and notes in Norwegian need to be translated into English. Also, if I understand correctly, all the programs in the genre "Teleplay" need to be deleted because they are actually TV movies, not series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed most of the "Teleplays", but there are probably a number of other one-shot programs on this list that don't qualify as series (documentaries, specials, etc.) that need to be removed as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree. It's WP:NOTPERFECT. But it's a start. It's clearly a valid list for the category, per WP:NOTDUP. We don't delete lists simply because they're incomplete or in need of improvement, which almost everything is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently this list is in WP:TNT territory. Sure the topic is notable per se, but a tremendous amount of work is required. There's various suggestions above on how this list can and should be fixed. I'd happily change to a keep vote if someone actually does the work. Otherwise, the AFD will be closed, everyone will move on to the next topic, and this page will be left to rot for another 5 years. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, in theory a better alternative would be to it cut down so that it contains only the series with Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, over 90% of "list of" articles are pointless cruft, and at present this article is largely so, but I am willing to accept that a list which serves as an index to existing articles can serve some purpose. However, the trouble with closing deletion discussions as "keep but do such and such to it" (such as merge it with another article, or in this case prune down to only series with articles) is that almost always nobody ever actually does that work, so that the effect is that a discussion in which there is an unambiguous consensus that the current form of an article should not remain actually results in its being kept. If during the course of this discussion someone actually does the work of cutting the article down, then I will very happily change to "keep", but if none of the people in favour of doing so does it now, experience suggests that they are very unlikely indeed to do it after the discussion is closed. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with list of articles often being pointless and unsourced, but consensus currently is that they are notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's obviously hard for general editors to work on a topic like this if they don't speak Norwegian. My own experience of the topic is limited to having watched a few episodes of Lilyhammer and so I'm not going to be the one to improve this. But it seems quite harmless and is the sort of topic that is likely to be quite accurate. What I can tell you is that the Encyclopedia of Television has a nice entry for Norway. That doesn't say much about the individual programmes but points to sources which might. Our editing policy to improve rather than delete. Like Frank Tagliano says, "It's the land of Norway, huh? The land of second chances." Andrew D. (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does have problems, but the solution is cleanup instead of deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does have problems, but I believe they can be fixed. I've started to try to translate some of the titles of the shows. It'll take time, but it can be done. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This kind of list is not a question about WP:NOTESAL, it is a list with a clear inclusion criteria that serves well as a navigational aid per our guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates with emphasis on WP:NOTDUP and as such is usually kept per WP:LISTOUTCOMES. As such this recent revision doesn't work: I tried to retain relevant titles from the 76k 2011 copy-paste from that revision of no:Alfabetisk liste over norske TV-programmer, but with a red-linked:blue-linked ration of c. 6:1 it would be pushing the envelope of WP:CSC considering the lack articles actually translated the last 5+ years, and it would defeat the navigational purpose for the (mainly) anglophone reader here. Add to that that with 600+ expensive parser function calls, the list was well pass the limit set in WP:EXPENSIVE. Consequently I pruned it to include only blue-linked articles. — Sam Sailor 23:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does need alot of improvements however I don't really see any reason to delete it, I do wonder if these should all be moved to "List of Norwegian Television Series" etc etc however that's another discussion for another page, Anyway keep. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:40, 6 January 2017 (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.