Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia's 6.30pm current affairs ratings war

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 Delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 22:05Z

[edit] Australia's 6.30pm current affairs ratings war

Australia's 6.30pm current affairs ratings war (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not an encyclopædia of everything. A ratings list for a topic that barely warrants a mention in prose in other articles is not a sound basis for an article cj | talk 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 12:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Whilst I'd assert that the topic itself is notable, an indiscriminate list of ratings like this is definitely not. Any relevant information on the ratings war should just be included in the Today Tonight and A Current Affair articles. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 12:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per NOT indiscriminate list Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an indiscriminate dumping of information. MER-C 12:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A mention on the pages Today Tonight and A Current Affair is more than enough without the ratings for every week, definitely no need for it's own article. Firelement85 12:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete A huge amount of stats but not appropriate. Would suit a personal website, I find it very unlikely TV executives would be browsing wikipedia for this sort of info --PrincessBrat 13:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I can't see how anyone is going to find this remotely useful. Hut 8.5 16:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Comprehensive, but something only Australian news geeks could enjoy, completely useless and with no reasoning or context to everyone else. Nate 00:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey I enjoyed this and I'm not a news geek! (Well I didn't bother reading all the numbers... but it's good to know Today Tonight is losing the ratings war... I lost respect for them ever since they slandered Neopets...) anyway merge relevant information to Today Tonight and A Current Affair articles.--Candy-Panda 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I'll be the odd one out. I don't see how this is an indiscriminate collection of information per above comments. Its verifiable and well laid out as far as I can see. Stats like this are not everyone's cup of tea but I'm sure there are media students for one that would find the article useful and interesting. Article could be improved with some interpretation of some of the data and more detail on the source of the information. The time slot immediately after the news IS incredibly important to network profits and media analysts DO dissect this type of data. Merging the data into either or both of the two current affairs programs misses the point as the comparison over an extended period is what's important. —Moondyne 13:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  There's no doubt it is of interest to some people (indeed, it wouldn't have been created if it weren't), but it's simply not Wikipedia's purpose to be a repository for everything. This information can be hosted elsewhere.--cj | talk 13:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Where? Why NOT Wikipedia? I wouldn't see this article as a thin end of the wedge if that's what's being suggested. It's an article about one of the prime television advertising slots for the national audience. —Moondyne 13:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete --Peta 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, this is an encyclopedia, not an almanac.- Gilliam 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a list. Would be good to have a section on ratings in the Today Tonight and A Current Affair sections (in prose), but this is not the right way to go about it. --Tntnnbltn 05:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete while the debate may rage if this falls under speedy criteria, speedy delete is definitely what this article needs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

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.