Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 in Australian television

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Fram (talk) 10:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 in Australian television

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/1996 in Australian television
1996 in Australian television (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete; The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Even though an article, for the mere fact of it being a list, does not make it encyclopedic, it would depend on what the list is about.

Also, does the inclusion of a group of articles on the years in television history mean there will also be others about American television history by year? Mexican television by year? Russian television by year? And what events on television would be notable enough to include in the articles? Technically, anything that's past is historical, but would news be notable enough? If the Oscars are included, does that mean Premio Lo Nuestro is too due to the fact that is one of the most anticipated Spanish-speaking shows throughout the year by Latinos, though not by english speaking people, in the United States? Monkeytheboy (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't watch television - not interested in television, ..... but articles of this type have precedent. The alternative would be to merge with year in Australia articles, which for the content in this article would be feasible, ie merge to 1996 in Australia and/or to 1996 in television - the latter I suspect is US biased and could be renamed 1996 in US television - I have no difficulty with articles on Mexican or Russian television. I note that 1996 in television is quite lengthy already.--Matilda talk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - 1966-67 United States network television schedule would seem to indicate that there are indeed articles about US television programming by year.--Matilda talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I am not sure in the nomination the point of the comment The pages for *Year* in Australian television all do not seem to include an article. They are merely lists that provide little or no notable content. Pages have already been deleted before because of their consisting of only a template with broken links to uncreated pages. Most pages also seem to need references and most can be considered stubs. Red links and stubs are both OK on Wikipedia and neither are reasons to delete. Lists are also OK. Note that notability guidelines do not limit content of lists except when it comes to people - see WP:NNC. I have not been able to find a specific guidleline for television but there is a comprehensive wikiproject and perhaps they can shed more light.--Matilda talk 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Matilda talk 23:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of these "19XX in Australian television" articles were deleted recently because they contained no content apart from the navbox and that's fair enough, however if there is sustainable content I see no reason to delete the article. As Matilda says, stubs and lists are fine and articles are not required to contain prose. If you look at the more recent articles such as 2007 in Australian television, you'll see that they are intended to be quite well-referenced listings of series debuts, endings and channel changes, as well as notable events in television. If someone wants to work on a Mexican television article, so be it, if not there's no need to delete articles people are willing and able to work on (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). --Canley (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge While 2007 in Australian television may generate sufficient interest and content due to its recency, it's harder to imagine that either of say 1981 in Australian television or 1982 in Australian television would progress much beyond stubs. This suggests perhaps Australian television in the 1980s might be a more sensible aggregation, with similar articles for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, or even the 1990s. Murtoa (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I, along with Allied45 have been working on both 2007 in Australian television and 2008 in Australian television with the intent of creating an entire series of articles right back to 1956 when television was first broadcast in Australia. We are still deciding on the format, structure and content before completely rolling these out. The reason for these articles, as correctly pointed out by Matilda above, is the Year in television articles are in essence Year in Amercian television. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As mentioned above, I have been working hard, alongside Ianblair23, to create a series of articles relating to Years in Australian television. Sure, this page hasn't took off yet, but it can be called a stub, and editors can have the oppurtunity to add what relevant content that they wish. I'll also like to point out that as well as 2007 in Australian television, there are also articles for Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States. -- Allied45 (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2008 (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.