Deletion of List of fictional television shows (2nd nomination)

Comment: My god this article is a mess!  What are the standards for inclusion?  Where are the references?  How is this notable?  This is an excellent example of why |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  The range of the topic is just too broad.  Even if all the shows were verified they have no notable relationship with each other worthy of mention
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: Besides the fact that every single item in this list is |verifiable and can be sourced to its primary source, the fictional work in which it appears, I am going to invoke |ignore all rules for the reason that deleting this article would not improve the encyclopedia, and a dozen or two editors who find this information "useless" or "indiscriminate", or whatever other policy-imitating buzzword that basically translates to , should not override the consensus of the hundreds of editors who worked on and maintained this article over the last two and a half years. Before someone invokes , this is not intended to be an "effort" argument; if just a few people worked for thousands of hours creating this list, ''that'' would be an "effort" argument. This is a  argument, and a five-day AfD is a rather poor measure of consensus against what hundreds of good-faith editors have been doing for two and a half years
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:IAR||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:EFFORT||WP:CONSENSUS)

Comment: Ultimately, this is a list of jokes, isn't it?  It's no different than a list of insults or a list of fictional towns that might be found in the dialogue of a TV show.  Yes, it's an interesting list, and I'm saving it to my own computer to enjoy later; and I appreciate the effort that went into compiling it.  However, none of those are reasons to keep, other than the obvious one under |WP:MANDSFORD which is that if Mandsford likes it, then words like irregardless apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Editors' contributions to an article cannot be accepted as ''de facto'' keep votes, and certainly don't demonstrate consensus to keep. An edit to an article does not in any way prove that the editor knows the policies pertaining to what Wikipedia should include, it doesn't prove that the editor gave any thought to those policies before making the edit; at best it can be taken as an indication that the editor |likes it. I'll also add that the bulk of the keep arguments in this discussion amount to little more than  as well
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: If you read the keep arguments from last time, you'll see that all but one of them boil down to  or . I think previous consensus can, and should, be challenged in such cases
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:USEFUL)

Comment: per  (in the whole 'this is too much useless information' sense rather than the 'I don't care' reasoning). Keep the fake show titles within individual article prose. TV is parodied on TV. It's a fact. But it doesn't mean we have to list every fake TV show ever
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WHOCARES)

Comment: but wikify further.  At first glance, a category would serve this purpose, but not all items which might be included in this list are notable.  I am concerned that this list is too broad (see ), but its categories could become separate lists
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)