Deletion of List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC (2nd nomination)

Comment: The BBC has produced many notable and distinctive shows such as Monty Python, Dad's Army, Sky at Night, Blue Peter, Doctor Who and so on.  If there's an article for the show (which there is in all these cases) then, per , a list is a perfectly valid way of navigating and browsing our content.  If the list is large, then it may be organised alphabetically, as at present, or subdivided by decade, genre or the like.  The existence of categories is no reason to delete as is made very clear by .  The claims that the list is too large to be manageable don't stand up as we have plenty of other large lists or hierarchies of lists including List of movies, List of books, List of minor planets, &c.  There is therefore no policy-based reason to delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:CLN)

Comment: You can hardly argue that the group of program(mes) broadcast by the BBC isn't #Stand-alone_lists|a notable group. It's also #Purposes_of_lists|informational. (I, for one, track all changes to the page out of pure interest in, yes, programs broadcast on the BBC
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: per ; a navigational index of |notable topics. The article is too large to fit into the main article, and a link is posted there. It does not matter how useful or visible it is, it is if it is warranted rather. Another difference is this article places the items in list-form, which is handy, but not absolute
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SAL||WP:N)

Comment: This article has been at AfD twice before, in 2012  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_television_programmes_broadcast_by_the_BBC here, and as part of a bulk nomination in 2006, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lists_of_programs_broadcast_by_networks here. Both times it was kept. The article has a specified scope and so is not indiscriminate in the normal meaning of the word, nor does it seem to fall foul of . Does it? The list is long and I suppose it very incomplete but those are reasons for improvement, not deletion. Lack of references is disappointing but so long as the entries are linked to articles (nearly all are) that is not a problem. Yes, I agree the list could be repurposed, pruned, made more informative (year when transmitted, production company, etc) but at AfD we should leave editors alone to get on with that sort of thing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: The list is not indiscriminate; it is a list of programs "either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast on the BBC". That's the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The argument has been made that the article is a duplicate of :Category:BBC television programmes, but per  "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and |should be avoided." The argument has also been made that a precedent has been made by "other recent discussions of channel offerings", but I participated in several of those discussions, and the consensus was to delete channel listings for satellite carriers (such as a list of Dish Network channels), not a list of programs for an individual over-the-air broadcaster (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_digital_terrestrial_television_channels_(UK) for details). The difference is clear: listing a satellite company's ''channel offerings'' is in effect advertizing for the company. Listing the BBC's ''programs'' is something you might expect of an encyclopedia (I have several American television encyclopedias which do the same for US programs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NOTDUP||WP:ATA)