Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd bundle of channel lineups

(View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2nd_bundle_of_channel_lineups Stats])

:{{la|List of channels on TalkTalk TV}}

:{{la|List of TV di Fastweb channels}}

:{{la|List of channels on TVCatchup}}

:{{la|List of channels on UPC Ireland}}

:{{la|List of channels on UPC Netherlands (Horizon)}}

:{{la|List of channels on UPC Netherlands (Mediabox)}}

:{{la|List of channels on UPC Romania (Digital with DVR)}}

:{{la|List of channels on UPC Romania (Standard Digital)}}

Obviously, these articles violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE (or WP:NOTDIR) because a page must not be mere table, no matter a prose. No prose will help them be encyclopedic, which is opposite effect for season articles, like Cheers (season 1). Consensus from WP:articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and WP:articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination) said that channel lineups (or whatever users call them) are not suitable for Wikipedia, so same can go to them here. Information may be dated and prone to edit warring, but these are not main reasons for deletion.

NOTE: I have agreed to require approval from a mentor before AFD. I have this page approved by one of my mentors, Dr.K, before you say anything about me. I hope this does not affect this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per NOTDIR and prior AFDs, though the nominator here appears to misstate the precise reasons for deletion ("a page must not be mere table" {{sic}} is not correct; the kind of information here is the issue, the presentation format of table versus prose is irrelevant). postdlf (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry; I cannot adequately or concisively explain it. I stroke that part out, just in case. Here goes: "These pages violate the policy because their main purposes are helping readers direct them to whichever channel number the network is located." Hope that's relevant. --George Ho (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - all, Standard "not a directory, not TV Guide" applies. Good to see this junk finally getting cleaned up. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons previously stated. Also, this would be a nightmare to maintain. - MrX ^(TALK) 13:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete all – completely inappropriate information. Channel lineups are directories and consist of trivial content that fails notability. There's also the problem of them changing so much, maintenance is an issue. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, and the comments I've made at those pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR and I suppose WP:USEFUL by virtue of being a prime example of what isn't. I have an AfD process on going in this field at the moment and use my reasoning in that place here doktorb _words^deeds 02:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Note: I have created another AfD which is similar to this one. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• it makes me sad to think of all the manhours that were put into all of these lists making and maintaining such pretty charts- and how all of that effort could have been creating and enhancing actual encyclopedic content. delete per NOTDIR and many also blatantly fail WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep some fwiw, some of these are clearly well-sourced and encyclopedic and some are clearly impossible to ever become so, but I am not going through the list to pick which are which; and my disagreement with the notdir argument has already been stated and echoed. I do applaud these two bundle noms for getting all the articles in the category without much ado. I note that apparently List of La Liga broadcasters will make the cut because it is a list of channels with the same content due to contracting with the same provider, not a list of channels with the same network due to contracting with multiple providers. Apparently List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom will make the cut because it is a list of channels in the same country from four networks instead of a list of channels in the same country from one network (although with the Sky merger that's debatable). And all the other lists will make the cut because they are distinguishable from these for other reasons. KEEPERS, TAKE NOTE: Apparently if you want the content (back) on WP, the best route is to make it a comparative list of channels available in one country, tabulated by provider/network, rather than make it a list of channels from one provider/network. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC) same primary editor as User:12.153.112.21. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Just insane that it's even considered to be deleted. If it gets deleted I also stop contributing to Wikipedia all together. What a waste of my time and the energy. A big thumbs down when it gets deleted! -- C0re1980 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Comment It's not a valid vote to say "I spent a long time writing out television channels, therefore the article is important". I could spend a long time writing the bus timetables for northern England and after a week of doing so, an administrator would delete the article within an hour. That's because Wikipedia has to limit what it hosts. There's a television listing service through your remote control, there's no need for Wikipedia to host it. doktorb _words^deeds 16:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

::* Everyone please stop using dismissive, and thus uncivil, examples. My remote-controlled television listing service (a true EPG, providing program listings) does not allow me or any researcher to compare or contrast the lineups of other providers. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

:::*Using listings to compare services, and draw conclusions from that, is against WP:OR. doktorb _words^deeds 16:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

::::*Meaning those using WP as an educational resource, not those editing WP. Which is why I said "researcher", not "editor". --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

::::*Importantly, this is why the various historical television lineups by season are kept - there are external sources that make the comparison between how networks did based on competing shows for encyclopedic value. I have never seen any similar thing done between competiting cable providers. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::*You mean like [http://www.avsforum.com/t/1058081/official-avs-national-hd-channel-lineups-cable-dbs-fiber-iptv-updated-9-10-12 this]? --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

::::::*It's not merely because (American) network prime time lineups are discussed by reliable sources that makes listing them valid; it's also because the scheduling by the originating broadcast network is integral to the shows' histories (not to mention the networks') and is often credited with making or breaking the show's success, both in terms of what the show is competing against on other networks and in terms of the scheduled slot in and of itself (e.g., Friday night death slot). The same cannot be said for the relationship of a cable network to all the many hundreds of cable providers that carry it. How many carriers around the world carry CNN? MTV? It is typical for most cable providers to carry all major cable networks, to the extent that the only time it makes news is when contract disputes interfere with that default. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Per WP:EFFORT, "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines." These articles still fail Wikipedia policy, WP:NOTDIR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Following this reasoning discographies, filmographies etc. should be deleted as well. All are so called lists or directories in your definition of a directory -- C0re1980 (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• If you think that is the case you are able to create a deletion article for discussion doktorb _words^deeds 11:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• I define directories different, so no I won't. But be my guest and demotivate more users. -- C0re1980 (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• It is unfortunate if any editors become discouraged because work in these List of station .. articles are being deleted. But, there are gazillion potential and stub articles about Television in X that they can provide actually encyclopedic and interesting content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

: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.