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 redirect to Lists of television channels. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of television channels (alphabetically)[edit]

Lists of television channels (alphabetically) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This is too broad of a category as per WP:SALAT. Despite its length, it is actually not complete. And it is also difficult to maintain, as it is out of date. We already have more appropriate lists by country, see [1] Rusf10 (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I’m sorry to disagree here, but you say in the nomination that the list is; “…. too broad of a category as per WP:SALAT”. However, in fact, it fits perfectly within the guidelines recommended by this policy. As stated in the opening remarks of the policy; “…To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists.” This topic is a specific list: a Lists of television channels (alphabetically) and does limit the topic specifically. Second, with regards to; “…difficulty to maintain”, is not every article in Wikipedia difficult to maintain on a day-to-day-, hour-by-hour basis with breaking news and vandalism happening second by second? And finally, as you stated; “… it is out of date” Every article here at Wikipedia is out of date, that is why we have an unlimited amount of volunteer editors updating and improving articles on a second-by-second basis. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At 95,947 bytes it is too large as per WP:TOOBIG (and its not even complete). As that size spinoffs are recommended. However, I I pointed out above those spinoffs already exist, making this article not necessary. Actually the spinoff content is fully listed here Lists_of_television_channels. It is a very broad category for a list. We don't have other similar list such as List of retail stores (alphabetically) or List of radio stations (alphabetically).--Rusf10 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Rusf10, I’m sorry but I do not believe you read the policy all the way through. If you go to WP:SPLITLIST, under the policy heading WP:TOOBIG you referred to, you will see the guideline states specifically; “…Lists, tables, and other material that is already in summary form may not be appropriate for reducing or summarizing further by the summary style method. If there is no "natural" way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact, and a decision made to either keep it embedded in the main article or split it off into a stand-alone page. Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope.”...Sorry again, but we can not pick and choose specific areas of a policy, that do not apply to the specific situation you are referring to and try to apply to that situation.... goes to the old adage; "...a square peg does not fit into a round hole". Nice try though. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shoessss:, I am sorry, but I actually did read the policy and I am not picking and choosing specific areas of it. There is a "natural" way to split this list and it's already been done, see Lists_of_television_channels. It makes logical sense to split the television channels by country, which is what has been done, making this list both redundant and a complete mess.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Kind of meaningless. TV market is very much segmented by country and regions. I wouldn't get CNBC Asia in the USA, but largely they carry very similar programming (perhaps some of the CNBC Asia shows wouldn't be on CNBC USA because they're shown on other NBC channels instead) but with a different schedule. Also, the threshold for inclusion is unclear. In the US we have a lot of local independent stations K??? or W??? stations but are not on this list. Again except for some locally produced shows you will find the same programming on another channel in another part of the world. Acnetj (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SALAT. Unwieldy list that needs to be condensed into separate regional lists. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and further annotate with the country of origin. --RAN (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy-based reason to keep? Also, it seems like you support catergorizing them by country, kind of like this or this?

• Delete I don't see any utility of this topic beyond what's available in articles linked in Lists of television channels. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep You can't delete something because of its length or how hard you think it is to maintain. I don't see the point of this though, since we have lists of television channels by language and by nation already, but in the past 90 days it has received 10,275 pageviews. So someone must be using it. I agree with Richard Arthur Norton, if it listed the nation the channels were in, it'd be more useful. Add in what company owns them, make it a sortable list, and that'd be even more useful. See how many channels are owned by who and how many nations they are in. Dream Focus 18:38, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page views is not a valid reason to keep (see WP:BIGNUMBER) nor "it is useful" (see WP:USEFUL). I am also not just arguing that the list is too long. It is too long and there are already suitable replacements in existence. Since we already have lists of channels by county, there is no reason to create a massive sortable table. Massive sortable lists are not appropriate, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a spreadsheet. For example, when you go to Lists of actors, there is not a massive sortable table--Rusf10 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It serves a purpose, people use it, and it has potential to be even more useful. The fact that List of American film actresses and the like only list names and birthdays doesn't mean other lists can't be sortable. There are a lot of sortable lists on Wikipedia, just takes some effort for someone to make them. Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#General_formats_of_list_articles mentions List of social networking websites as a sortable list. Dream Focus 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of American film actresses is not a list of every American film actress ever or even all those with a wikipedia article (same with the your other example), it is limited to only the most notable, so you're comparing apples to oranges.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a Wikipedia article they can be listed. The fact no one updated it to have everyone, is not relevant. Dream Focus 04:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lists of television channels, just to maintain the edit history. We already have lists by country and language. Do not reinvent the wheel. Add the entries to those, and when needed (particularly for countries), create new, more manageable lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the grammar police have issued a citation. There is only one list. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lists of television channels It's just a long list of links. The category system works a lot better for something like this. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:SALAT. Tens of thousands of stations, each of which could be considered their own channel. Many choose to air the same content as other stations, but there are a bunch of notable indie stations that would have to be counted. And if a station is affiliated with a major network like NBC but has local programming, are they to be listed twice? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 1 April 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.