Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television shows set in London

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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows set in London

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

Redundant – this list provides no additional useful information that cannot be found at Category:Television shows set in London.
I would nominate all the articles in Category:Lists of television series by setting citing similar rationale of redundancy. Such listcruft will forever lag behind the categories, and be a maintenance burden Ohc ^¡digame! 03:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The lists have details that mere categories can't contain. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - 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." These list articles are also expandable. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While these could do with additional details and sources, the existence of categories isn't a good reason to delete them. --Michig (talk) 06:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined lists with inclusion criteria. And per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, categorization is something different. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that lists must necessarily lag behind categories is false. For example, consider the TV show W1A, which is named after a London postcode. It's not in either currently and so it's a matter of luck which gets done first. Andrew (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admit some need tidying up and sourcing but that alone isn't necessarily grounds for deletion, All encyclopedic info that needs some TLC really. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2014 (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.