Deletion of Lists of programs broadcast by networks

Comment: And this is hardly a bad faith nomination! The issue was discussed before on an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sci Fi Channel (United States) programs|earlier, related AfD, which passed with precisely the same arguments as this one. What with , I entirely agree that articles like this oughta go. (And thanks for pointing this AfD out to me, Maxamegalon; otherwise my earlier "ditto" might've proved me a liar
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: all and similar lists as blatant violation of  a tv guide. Good faith nomination by precedent and policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Note that while some of these have current schedules, most of them provide organized information. See List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim, for example, which contains a notes column with useful information and grouped by theme. From  (but not ), a guideline for when to create lists, ''Lists on Wikipedia have three main purposes:'' Information, Navigation, and Development. Number 2 doesn't really apply anymore because of Categories, but for quite a few of these, either 1 (Info) or 3 applies very well. For info: ''The list may be a '''valuable information source'''. This is particularly the case for a '''structured list'''. Examples would include '''lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.''''' It's clear, for example, that the above mentioned Adult Swim list is a valuable information source, grouping information by theme, chronologically, and containing significant notes on the programs. Moreover, a number of these lists, like List of programs broadcast by Alpha TV, for example, clearly fulfill the development aspect of Lists cited by Wikipedia as just reason to create a list (''Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written.'') All of these reasons should make it obvious why these lists should be kept. Some of them seem to be better replaced by Categories, but there are many lists proposed for deletion that clearly fulfill one or two of the above reasons to create a list as per accepted WP guidelines. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LISTS||WP:lists)

Comment: but make short style essay about what these lists should contain. As per  they should not be used to tell when a show is on, or promotional information. These lists should be limited to '''historical''' information, while the website of the station can contain current events/shows. If I caught some glimpses of something on a channel a year ago, such a list is useful
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: bad faith nomination. The lists are perfectly relevant. |Wikipedia is not paper
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as text-book  A7.7 fail
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per discussion.  These articles represent the history of the broadcasters. Only policy issue brought up is  TV guide, which is a seriously weak argument. It's too bad Sci-Fi was already deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: On one hand I'm tempted by deleting per  and there is no need for these lists if we have proper categories. On the other hand, the categories are currently not developed enough to cover for the loss. By the way, there is no indication that this nomination is done in bad faith and I think that claim should either be retracted or carefully explained
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)