Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wizard of Oz on television

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 in some shape or form. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard of Oz on television

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of the film, any line from the film or any image that reminds an editor of the film. Otto4711 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge on the first section, as I do think the television career of this movie is sufficiently notable to belong in its main article, at least in part, (See [1] for a page that shows somebody has collected clippings about it) but the rest is a bit of a different story. FrozenPurpleCube 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This list was split from the main article on purpose[2]; if you think it has attracted some cruft, then fix it! John Vandenberg 05:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off garbage from the main article is not a good reason to have an article. If the information is garbage in the main article it's garbage in a separate article. All splitting off garbage does is transfer the problem from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, if it can be agreed that the article will be restricted to the approprietely referenced broadcast history of TWOO and all trivial refernces to the film in other TV shows will be deleted, then I can support the article. But the "a guy on this TV show said 'flying monkeys'" crap needs to go. Otto4711 06:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not that it was "better here than there", but that this Afd was inappopriate because the subject matter does warrant being covered (as evidenced by the material being split from the main article, and the main article including a link to this sub page at the top). As a result there are only two alternatives:

the subject warrants a separate article but it is currently full of cruft, in which case you should have helped clean it up or at least voiced your discontent on the talk page, or
the subject only warrants a section on the main article, in which case you should have proposed that it should be merged back on the talk page.

Afd is intended to deal with entire articles that are not salvagable (lack of notability, sources, full of tripe, etc); problems regarding content within an article should be disputed on the talk page. John Vandenberg 06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, first off, I don't need a lecture from you or anyone else over the appropriateness of an AFD or on the role of AFD. Secondly, I find it bizarre that you would criticise me for nominating an article that's full of tripe when you note right in your criticism that "full of tripe" is a legitimate reason for an AFD. Third, the fact that this was split off from another article does not in any way, shape or form prove that the subject deserves its own article. That's just ridiculous. Anybody can take any stack of shit from one article and stick it in its own article. Arguing that the article should exist because it was split off from another article is a horrible argument. Regardless, as I've said, take out the trash and keep the article about the broadcast history, assuming that such an article can be referenced, and that's fine by me. That's not what this article is, though, and in its present form the AFD is still legit. Otto4711 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please folks, remember, WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF and WP:NPA. There's no reason to get into a dispute here, and it's important to keep tempers cool. Yes, I do think it's better to consider cleanup first, but I also recognize that sometimes that cleanup just doesn't happen. FrozenPurpleCube 16:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep AS ABOVEDalejenkins 12:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge first part per FrozenPurpleCube. Sourced information regarding the televion career is notable and useful to the main article, but the laundry list of pop-culture references is unencyclopedic. Arkyan  ^(talk) 15:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But, as others said, make it specifically about the history of broadcasting the film on television, and leave out the "Oz in pop culture" type information. (There's a references section in the main article if any of them are actually notable references and not just one-liners.) I think the importance of the annual broadcasts of Oz to the culture of the 50s-80s, and the importance of the TV showings to the status of the film, merit enough coverage that it's too much to keep in the main article. Pinball22 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unlike many other "in popular culture" articles, this one doesn't seem to be abandoned, and is in pretty good shape. It would be a shame to lose the well-written top material; a merge may be wise, but I'd rather leave it up to those being WP:BOLD than try to dictate by committee. As for the "references" section: like it or not, this film has had a very major impact, and an article covering its influences may well be appropriate: even a list of significant examples may be appropriate. I removed references where the only connection was a quote such as "and your little dog, too" or "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Mango juice^talk 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added several references specifically about the unique career of this film on TV: the film has been shown more times on prime-time network TV than any other film or program, with 49% or better audience share for the first 8 showings. Its annual showing was a unique cultural event before home video recordings were around. Editing can trim away any cruft or trivial cultural references. The showing of this film on TV from 1956 to the present is unique and encyclopedic, and has multiple independent references with substantial coverage, satisfying WP:N and WP:ATT. Edison 22:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the "TV history", delete the trivial references in TV shows. Something as iconic as this film has had thousands of references in TV shows, so trying to list them is pointless. This is two completely different articles on one page. Masaruemoto 01:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per pinball and masaruemoto. --woggly 17:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison.Ezratrumpet 01:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information could be of value to some people. It was originally in The Wizard of Oz page. I posted a suggestion in the discussion page to open a separate article on it since the Oz page was enormous. I got no responses either positive or negative so gave it a page of its on. I personally think anyone looking for information about The Wizard of Oz film would not find much value in the television information. However, a fan interested in the film's history would most likely appreciate it. I am not sure who the original contributor of the information was. Philbertgray 21:24, 17 April 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.