List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN: It's probably also a WP:NOTDIRECTORY violation.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television , Lists ,  and Philippines .  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I don't think anything has changed since the previous two nominations.  Please read both those discussions to put the current nomination in context.  Eastmain ( talk • contribs ) 17:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Eastmain : I did read the last two nominations and still think this discussion should happen.  Nomination 1 happened in 2008, and none of the editors involved provided a reason for keeping the list that was based on reliable sources.  This list also does not inherit notability because the channel is notable.  Nomination 2 was speedily closed at WP:AN without prejudice against renomination.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as per WP:NOTDIR .  LibStar ( talk ) 23:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep : This is an useful page, there are a bunch of list of TV program articles here on Wikipedia.  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 09:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping.  LibStar ( talk ) 10:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agree this list is more of a directory •C y b erw o l f• 19:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I presume this is a delete ! vote?  LibStar ( talk ) 00:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment If it really violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY , then we need to nominate also the related articles (eg: List of programs broadcast by GMA Network , List of programs broadcast by TV5 (Philippine TV network) , etc. ) ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Plus there are a bunch of them on Template:List of television programs by region .  ThisIsSeanJ ( talk ) 01:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ ThisIsSeanJ : This is the reason the second nomination exists; someone decided to AfD a large number of these lists due to WP:NOTDIRECTORY issues.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 02:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but add and find references on the list to keep its notability.  Supercrumblesph ( talk ) 11:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Supercrumblesph : This seems like a WP:MUSTBESOURCES -type argument.  Could you provide a reason for why the article should be kept?  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 04:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and I invite all editors to review this paragraph of WP:CSC Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group .  These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32 K ) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.  The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.  For example, Listed buildings in Rivington .  If reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable buildings and two non-notable buildings, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable buildings.  However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.  Content guideline is pretty unambiguous here.  This list is obviously notable because WP:NLIST , but per CSC guidelines, non-notable list entries should be removed.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 10:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ BrigadierG : Thanks for your comment!  I don't think WP:CSC is relevant here — this is not a short list by any means.  The list is also not " obviously notable "; in fact, lack of apparent notability was my original nomination rationale.  WP:NLIST states that " a list topic is considered notable [...] if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources " (emphasis original).  This article is supported by only a handful of references, none of which specifically discuss the list topic.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 04:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe there are almost certainly more offline sources.  I refuse to believe that the largest media broadcaster in the country with an original shows catalogue of independently notable programs that large has never been discussed as a set.  WP:NPOSSIBLE .  My mention of CSC was regarding calls for NOTDIR deletions - it's a NOTDIR violation only if it includes non-notable entries.  Right now, this seems like a valid navigational list to me.  WP:LISTPURP-NAV applies here.  BrigadierG ( talk ) 01:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm certainly not denying WP:LISTPURP-NAV — it's one of the main ideas behind making lists in the first place.  I've looked around for sources that discuss the topic, and wasn't able to find any.  I can't comment on the existence of offline sources, but unless you can point to one of them, what you're saying is simply a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument.  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] KEEP!  Archival purposes!  Please note it referred to old program that had aired before.  2001:4454:313:C700:C18C:7ED1:C84C:1BA7 ( talk ) 13:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC) — 2001:4454:313:C700:C18C:7ED1:C84C:1BA7 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Unfortunately, " archival purposes " is not a reason for a Wikipedia article to exist on the subject.  Notability of the subject has to be shown; in particular, my concern is that this list fails the WP:NLIST guideline.  Would you be able to state your argument in terms of the policies and guidelines I've mentioned?  — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Need more discussion of whether this list meets the common selection criteria .  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Six sources out of a network's 70-year history, and a long term WP:TV project pain point with heavy IP vandalism.  This article needs to simply be blown up and started over again with much stricter criteria and editing standards.  Nate • ( chatter ) 23:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Only six refrances and only four of them are independent.  Half of them are about a closing and the other half are about a failed bid.  It doenst seem to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant ( talk • contribs ) 06:27, September 22, 2023 (UTC) Comment : Only now seeing Ritchie333 's relist message. I've struck a comment from my earlier reply as it seems I was mistaken — WP:CSC advises a limit of 32K, but this list is 20K. That means that this discussion is in fact relevant to the third point of CSC, as BrigadierG mentioned. However, it also requires that " every item... is verifiably a member of the group " (emphasis original), which is really not the case here. The vast majority of entries in this list are unsourced, and it will take a lot of work to fix that issue. My !vote as nominator remains to delete . — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 14:32, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I struck every example without its own Wikipedia article from the list. Is verifiability the hill you want to die on? Feel free to remove any items you feel are not verifiably group members. BrigadierG ( talk ) 15:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] " Is verifiability the hill you want to die on? " I sincerely hope that no one is taking this discussion so seriously as to be considering their death. However, verifiability is a core policy that has to be followed across the encyclopedia. Also, am I missing something? I still see only a handful of citations for the more than 200 list items, and none of those sources discuss anything outside the one show that they're focused on. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 18:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Every entry in the list is its own Wikipedia article, each of which has its own citations identifying it as being an ABS-CBN production. Verifiability is an issue only if there are no citations that exist that verify a claim, not that they are necessarily present in the article. Pick any random example from the list, click into its article. Does it have citations verifying it is a ABS-CBN production? The reason I asked if it was the hill you wanted to die on is that literally every single entry in this list without fail has citations because it has its own Wikipedia article. To put it another way, if the citations in the articles were copied as inline references to each list item, would that satisfy you? Doing so isn't actually a requirement of WP:LISTVERIFY , but if the answer was yes, would that change your view about the nomination? It actually gets even better than that because quote... "Technically, if an article contains none of these four types of material, then it is not required by any policy to name any sources at all, either as inline citations or as general references."  To put it yet another way, if verifiability is in fact the only reason to delete the article, do you believe the claims made in the article are unlikely to be sourceable? Do they contain any of the four types of content that require inline citations per WP:MINREF ? BrigadierG ( talk ) 19:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Meets WP:CLN, AOAL for navigation list. A lot of the individual entries in this list lack notability and should be reviewed, but the list itself will meet CLN and an index list. // Timothy :: talk 19:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ TimothyBlue : WP:AOAL is a subsection of WP:CLN . Could you clarify what you mean by the list "meeting" CLN? As far as I can see, AOAL is just a list of useful things that lists can do, similar to WP:LISTPURP-NAV cited above, and not a set of criteria for determining whether or not a specific list should exist. — TechnoSquirrel69 ( sigh ) 22:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] CLN/AOAL describes ways navigation aid can be used to improve the encyclopedia by helping readers find information. I think this list does this. Navigation list articles such as outlines, indexes, timelines are common when large numbers of articles exist and readers may benefit from a index (alpha), timeline (chronological) or outline (topical) style listing. If there is a consensus that this serves a useful navigation purpose per CLN, it should remain. If there is a consensus that it serves no useful navigation purpose per CLN, it should be deleted. // Timothy :: talk 22:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I closed this but I'll be relisting this instead. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🔥 Jala peño 🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , standard /list of programs broadcast by – / page, detailed article to facilitate navigation. Sources exist. Fwiw, the page has received coverage . Smile.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Then please, add them . Six out of the eight sources in the article now detail the network's demise with 'best known shows' in summary form, leaving only two sources for the entire article.  If sources exist, they should be added (and it should be damned standard with TV lists that a source must be included when adding a show).  I'm dog-tired of articles being kept despite radical and lazy non-sourcing.  Nate • ( chatter ) 00:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep