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. More people said keep and gave relevant policies to back up their reasonings. (Non-admin closure)-- Chip123456 ( talk) 10:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

List of television programmes broadcast by the BBC (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log • Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article adds nothing whatsoever that the categories don't already provide. It's hopelessly incomplete, is never likely to be complete, and will never be as informative as the various categories of television programme by channel. There are many like it, but this one is a prime example of a hopeless cause. Dybeck ( talk) 13:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Delete because, seriously, we don't do lists. The Sound and the Fury ( talk) 16:42, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• We certainly do do lists. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Agree with Phil. We do a lot of lists! Vertium (talk to me) 02:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep The BBC is one of the most notable TV stations on the planet and all the items on this list are notable too. The argument that a category exists is redundant per WP:CLN. Being incomplete is not a reason for deletion. Lugnuts ( talk) 16:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep and improve I think this list is important, but redundant to the category in its current form. Perhaps a chronological list?-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep Per WP:CLN, WP:L. (1) Lists can duplicate categories: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping"; "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together" (2) incompleteness is not grounds for deleting a list (hence we have Template:expand list). Adding info, e.g. transmission dates, which channel it was shown on, etc, would be good. -- Colapeninsula ( talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep the list is useful, notable, and (best of all), not trivial. Till I Go Home ^{talk edits} 10:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "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." Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 21:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  You'll note, of course, that my argument was never about duplication. The point is that this list is a hopeless cause. If it were a duplicate of the category, it would at least be useable. The point is that this a poor shadow of the category. Admittedly, if this list could be improved with some additional information (like dates, or which BBC channel the shows appeared on), it might someday offer something that the categorisation doesn't. Dybeck ( talk) 22:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  "If"? Why would we think the list could not be annotated and improved in that way? postdlf ( talk) 15:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC) reply

  Unless you have certainty that it definitely will be, then yes, "If" - indicating the possibility that the list will not be improved in the manner suggested - is an appropriate word for the sentence, no? If, of course, you are able to provide this certainty, then you may wish to consider editing WP:CRYSTAL, since Wikipedia apparently now is a crystal ball... <grin> Dybeck ( talk) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is a very notable broadcasting network and the content will prove a valuable starting point for those who know it's from BBC, but may not know the name. This is a high value list. Vertium (talk to me) 02:56, 10 June 2012 (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.