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. Consensus is that these articles are notable in their own right and a merge is inappropriate. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Fox (Italy)[edit]

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

Unsourced list. Original research. We already have List of programs broadcast by Fox and all the region networks offer similar programming so we don't need separate articles for each region. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the exact same reasons:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You realize Fox is an American broadcast network, right? These lists are rarely going to fully match List of programs broadcast by Fox because of licensing and completely different audience focuses (European Fox networks are outside a couple exceptions, narrowly-targeted cable networks, not wide-audience broadcast channels; Turkey alone has mostly domestic content that rarely matches their other Fox sisters). Until you clarify and specify why exactly these articles should be deleted besides 'we have a list of Fox programs already' and hoping that discussions won't click on that article and find they're completely different, I can't support this nomination. It's too vague and you should be looking into other avenues like a merge of the European Fox articles before coming here. Nate • (chatter) 20:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an American broadcast, the USA is where the network originates from. However looking at the list of shows there are a high number of similarities across all five articles. Plus there is zero sources, so I'm labelling it as WP:OR. Since when it WP:V not a requirement for Wikipedia? Ajf773 (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish one is the only one that appears different, but then again it could just be equivalent shows dubbed. 21:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Comment I understand V, but you're asking us to nominate an article based on the existence of a network with a completely different business model. The Euro Fox cable networks have to program all 168 hours of a week. The American broadcast Fox only programs at minimum (without sports programming) fourteen hours per week. A basic understanding of American and European broadcasting, along with broadcast and cable models is needed, and you can't compare the American network to European networks in any way outside of 'in name' and shows from TCF Television. And as I ask all deletionists; why not source these things rather than asking for deletion? If you have time to create deletion noms, you have time to source things too. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like the nominator to explain more why they think this information is unverifiable/OR. If the claim was based solely on the present lack of sources in the article, without consideration as to whether such sources exist, then this would be their opportunity to recant that particular argument. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing the WP:V/WP:OR topic any further (and yes articles like this should not exist if they can't be verified), but two other things. First WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that distinguishes a list of original programming to an arbitrary list of every single programme broadcast on a channel. The other concern is notability, given that we already have a list for the Fox network's country of origin. Even though it's broadcast in several regions around the world, it's essentially repeated stuff. Ajf773 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked you to explain or elaborate on your claim that this was unverifiable/OR. You instead responded by repeating unrelated arguments. So I still have no idea why you think this list is unverifiable/OR. Have you abandoned that claim? postdlf (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Without any verification I stand by my statement that this is OR. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, based purely on the present lack of sources in the article. Do you think that's consistent with policy and deletion procedure? postdlf (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have articles where any can contribute but not verify any of the content they add? Should that not apply to entire articles?? You already know my answer to that. Ajf773 (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question in a deletion nomination is whether it can be verified, not whether it already has. postdlf (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I understand that some people may think that this article isn't notable, as there is already a section for FOX, but having this article allows for clear specialization and diversification of which can better match the content it is referencing. SuperChris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove it with referencing. Without reliable, indepth coverage this is just a spin-off list of unverified fancruft. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is exactly what people would use an online encyclopedia for. It's shabby now, but eventually, some editors will make the content comprehensive, make it a readable and useful table, etc. Incidentally, the AfD boxes for those other articles that the nominator mentioned (Lists for Foxes Turkey, Asia & Latin America) all link to this AfD. -Haikon 23:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't exactly encyclopedic though. It's lists of TV shows, with no sources attached they are unreliable and have no evidence of notability. There is already a List of programs broadcast by Fox which should be sufficient enough to cover all regional broadcasts. All four are bundled into one AFD which is perfectly legitimate. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2018 (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.