Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US network TV schedule articles

OK... this AfD covers the following 96 articles:

United States Network Television Schedule
1946-47 • 1947-48 • 1948-49 • 1949-50
1950-51 • 1951-52 • 1952-53 • 1953-54 • 1954-55 • 1955-56 • 1956-57 • 1957-58 • 1958-59 • 1959-60
1960-61 • 1961-62 • 1962-63 • 1963-64 • 1964-65 • 1965-66 • 1966-67 • 1967-68 • 1968-69 • 1969-70
1970-71 • 1971-72 • 1972-73 • 1973-74 • 1974-75 • 1975-76 • 1976-77 • 1977-78 • 1978-79 • 1979-80
1980-81 • 1981-82 • 1982-83 • 1983-84 • 1984-85 • 1985-86 • 1986-87 • 1987-88 • 1988-89 • 1989-90
1990-91 • 1991-92 • 1992-93 • 1993-94 • 1994-95 • 1995-96 • 1996-97 • 1997-98 • 1998-99 • 1999-00
2000-01 • 2001-02 • 2002-03 • 2003-04 • 2004-05 • 2005-06 • 2006-07 • 2007-08

... and ...

United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)
Seasons:
1990-91 - 1991-92 - 1992-93 - 1993-94 - 1994-95 - 1995-96 - 1996-97 - 1997-98 - 1998-99 - 1999-00
Seasons:
1980-81 - 1981-82 - 1982-83 - 1983-84 - 1984-85 - 1985-86 - 1986-87 - 1987-88 - 1988-89 - 1989-90
Seasons:
1970-71 - 1971-72 - 1972-73 - 1973-74 - 1974-75 - 1975-76 - 1976-77 - 1977-78 - 1978-79 - 1979-80
Seasons:
1966-67 - 1967-68 - 1968-69 - 1969-70

(View log)


With every single one of these articles, there is little more than what the titles say, i.e. the network television schedule for the years listed. I'm quite wogboggled that these have existed this long... Wikipedia Is Not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor are we a historical TV Guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these listings serve no encyclopedic purpose. Folks have put a fair amount of work into these, so a transwiki would be best (Wikisource?)... but at the very least they need to be removed from here because this content (which is largely unsourced) is just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Delete ALL. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is sensible, encyclopedic information. In the best of all possible worlds we'd have some sort of "data" or "interactive thingy" section that we could put content like this. Barring that, it's a sensible thing for an encyclopedia with unlimited amounts of space to have (as it would be reasonable to have an article on each of these television seasons, and this is a reasonable piece of information to have in those articles), and there's nowhere better for it than the article space. Phil Sandifer 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this stuff encyclopedic? It's an archive of unsourced data with zero context, not encyclopedia articles. Anyone remember the encyclopedia? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, OK - they should probably be moved to 19XX-19XX United States television season and tagged as stubs. But the fact remains, these are wholly sensible topics to have articles about, and these are sensible tables for those articles. It's a bit odd that the tables came in before the articles, but deleting the tables is still losing progress. Phil Sandifer 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's valid data which reflects something that's covered every year in the news. Lack of sources doesn't concern me here, if sources are wanted, they do exist. Mister.Manticore 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think I would have to link these, but here you go: Wikipedia is not a directory, Wikipedia is not a time capsule, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#BURO. The spirit of the rules is more important. Convince me there's a real problem with these pages, don't throw me a bunch of wikilinks. The directory issue has been invalidated before. Time Capsule is a useless reference. There's nothing in indiscriminate about this. You're going to have to actually provide arguments, not just wikilinks. Mister.Manticore 20:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are hardly indiscriminate. American mass culture is pretty notable. Nor is this a directory - these are not loosely organized. List of shows that aired Tuesdays at 9:00 would be a directory, but this organizes its information into sensible cultural moments and eras such that continuity is established. And time capsule is relatively new - and, frankly, relatively badly written and unclear. Phil Sandifer 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the prior AfDs, but looking at them, there are few policy based arguments for keeping... comments like "novel navigation guide" and "interesting".... but never addressing that this info is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. And to be honest, that the pages "[provide] a page that lists the appearance of a program by day" is not a valid, policy based argument fot keeping the data (and that's all it is, indiscriminate data). Wikipedia is not the place for a historical guide to past television airings, Wikisource is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you're unaware of these, and yet you see fit to nominate all these articles. That doesn't bode well for the degree of examination you've given to this subject. Personally, I'd say if you're reading policy to exclude these kinds of articles, then either you're misreading it or the policy is miswritten. I think you seriously need to examine whether or not there's a real problem here. These are historical facts. The notability is sufficiently covered by yearly discussions of the subject. The pages are limited to a natural grouping of the major broadcasters in the country. Where is the problem here? And please don't waste my time with links to pages. I want an actual articulation of the problem. Mister.Manticore 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have articulated the problem fairly clearly above, there is little sourcing, no context, and violates three full facets of WP:NOT. That they are "historical facts" is not relevant to what we are doing here, building an encyclopedia. Your rhetoric (and attempt to turn the focus to me) is not helpful. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may violate one facet. Though that facet isn't very clear, so it's not a useful test. It does have context - these are clearly subtopics of the larger topic of American mass culture, and the significance of network television in that is straightforward. There may be issues with sourcing, but I bet if you contacted some of the poeple who wrote the articles they'd find their sources for you. Phil Sandifer 20:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What facets? How? Lack of sources? I don't see any serious problem with the sourcing. A lack of sources in the articles only means whoever put them together should have sourced them at the time. It doesn't mean the sources don't exist. They quite obviously and undeniably do. And these historical facts are relevant to an encyclopedia, since it provides a clear picture of the weekly broadcast schedules which is itself the subject of coverage in newspapers and books. Why wouldn't it be covered? You do realize there are thousands of dates that have articles about them on Wikipedia, aren't you? Why? Because that provides a context to the events. The same as this does. Therefore, I say your claims of a problem are very poor. I think this is very much part of an encyclopedia, the same way s covering election results, sports events or population changes are. I'm sorry you feel I'm commenting on you, but I do feel you should give more consideration to the prior discussion. It is very troublesome to me that you didn't even know about them. Mister.Manticore 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP all. Agreed. How many times must an article (or type of article, in this case) be run through the ringer? once? twice? three times? Enough is enough! Users and editors have spoken out time and again to KEEP these articles; leave 'em alone already. Wikipedia is full of "lists" and "tables" to help navigate and organize groups of related articles, and these are no different. They present the data in a most logical fashion and it just makes sense to have them. They also happen to be rather popular and contain often searched-for information. Wikipedia is also where you find articles on the networks, programs, actors, producers, directors, distributors, awards, etc. so moving these pages elsewhere makes no sense either. So long as all these other related articles remains on Wikipedia, these "schedule" articles must also remain; their use could even be expanded (links to them from the television show articles; links from them to respective Emmy awards articles, etc). vmz 03:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles&oldid=149601785"