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. --Coredesat 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Delete - another indiscriminate collection of insignificant stuff. Otto4711 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Otto4711, not sourced either. Ganfon 14:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep perfectly good list. Jcuk 18:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The list is fine and is useful. To Ganfon: I don't see how you can get sources for everything, especially TV episodes and books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tartan (talk • contribs) 23:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Well, that you can't get sources for it, kind of means it isn't verifiable and as thus... unencyclopedic. And then it should be gone! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmaintainable, unverifiable, unencyclopedic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely unsourced article. Note that there is no article on Fictional radio stations. In general, there should not be a "list of X" unless there is a valid, encyclopedic article on X. Fictional radio stations is not an encyclopedic topic, so neither is a list of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there is no need to have an article on fictional radio stations to justify this list (though I suppose one could argue for the creation of such a page, I wouldn't know where to start with it myself). however, this doesn't change the fact that fictional radio stations are real, used in fiction, and as such, someone interested in such a thing might want to have a collated list of them. It is completely sourceable, and verifiable. IF you don't believe me, take WNYX or WKRP. Completely easy to verify that they are indeed fictonal radio stations. If there are any entries on the list you can't source, then remove them. Exaggerating by claiming the entries on the list itself aren't verifiable is not a reasonable argument though. FrozenPurpleCube 03:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I'm not crazy about the organization, but it is verifiable (thru cross-checking the fiction source material with the FCC database) and a manageable scope.-- danntm ^T _C 04:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I agree with danntm that the organization/presentation needs a bit of work; and for sourcing, a goodly number of these are already linked to articles, and several have external links. SkierRMH,04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Of the twelve stations with links, three of them (including both of the external links) are for real radio stations (which I will be removing as soon as I finish typing this) and one just links to the article for Brixton as opposed to anything to do with the fictional station. Another argument for deletion IMHO, if people can't figure out not to add real stations to a list called "fictional radio stations." Otto4711 04:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is open to anybody, any page can be impacted with that sort of mislinking. The solution to that is fixing it. FrozenPurpleCube 00:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, just because they exist (sort of) doesn't mean a Wikipedia article needs to be made listing them. WP:NOT#IINFO, all the way. Axem Titanium 05:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily maintained, absolutely verifiable from both primary and secondary sources. WP:NOT#IINFO? I'm baffled, which part applies so rigourously to these fictional list articles, Axem?--Canley 13:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As already stated above, this is a useful and maintainable list. The basis for deletion of this is a bit murky at best. RFerreira 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not indescriminate, not unmaintanable, content not insignificant. AndyJones 14:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful list Lumos3 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usefulness does not matter. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That page clearly says it is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Tartan 18:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Verifiable and useful. Doesn't fail any WP:NOT - Peregrine Fisher 22:35, 15 January 2007 (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.