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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of 90-minute television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As per Appropriate topics for lists, lists should not be too broad. No country, decade or language category included in article title. The Appropriate topics for lists explanation (towards end of the section) points out that there must be a reason how such a list contributes to the state of human knowledge. Earlier nominated for PROD, but declined stating incompleteness of list is not reason for delete. Text including the word Incomplete in text was introduced by initial author only and not by any person proposing or seconding the PROD - it was not the reason for PROD. Also, the person agreeing on pro-d pointed out, there are many series that were 90-minutes in duration for a few episodes only and title does not say whether it is country specific. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 07:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. It does not specify that it is for a specific country or broadcast market. So, it needs to be expanded to include the rest of the world. How can you say it's to broad, and too narrow at the same time? Beeblebrox (talk) 08:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The title and hence the list is too broad. Hence the article is being nominated as it does not add any value. It is not appropriate for a list. There is no mention of narrow. There is no comment on existing entries from my part, though the person who seconded the PROD mentioned that the title is not mentioning US market (again in the sense the title leads to the list being too broad). VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Much too broad - not to mention useless. Graymornings_(talk) 10:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, no evidence of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete much too indiscriminate. What next, lists of two-hour films? Three-minute songs? Five foot ten men? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too broad. Chasingsol (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad. The criteria for inclusion or trivial and don't make for useful sorting. As per Totnesmartin, it would also set a precedent for other lists that are not useful or suitable for inclusion. (One question: are those listings with or without commercials included? ) - Mgm|^(talk) 15:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep As the article points out, the 90 minute format for television series has been rare. The premise of the list as "shows that have aired 90 minute installments" is overly broad (no pun intended, but The Biggest Loser is not usually 90 minutes). However, Wagon Train and other westerns did run for 90 minutes back in the days before remotes. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2008 (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.