Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination)

{{notavote}}

::*({{Find sources|US network TV schedules}}) ([http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

• Delete - The following WP:CRUFTy articles are nominated for deletion because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, Wikipedia is not a diary, Wikipedia does not synthesise material to advance a position, Wikipedia is not a blog for television fanatics and (perhaps most importantly) Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. As with bus timetables and weather reports, TV schedules do not belong on Wikipedia. SplashScreen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

and Lists of United States network television schedules. SplashScreen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:NOT, "For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. These are "historically important programming lists and schedules." They are notable as shown by having multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage, or at least the prime time schedules are easily found to have significant coverage in books, magazines. They are a useful organizational tool with respect to the articles about the individual programs. No synthesis is needed to produce them. They are historic information, and not an "electronic program guide" someone will use to decide what to watch tonight. It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule. I do not see how they are a "blog" as the nominator asserts, nor are they a "diary." They are not "indiscriminate." The nominator's complaint that they are "crufty" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Edison (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:*Those "historically important programming lists and schedules" are things like Animation Domination, not these indiscriminate lists. "It is not realistic to compare a national prime time TV schedule with a weather report for one day, or with a bus schedule" - why? How is one more notable or important than the other? SplashScreen (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It appears the article creators have not been notified. Ill see if i can.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• :Surely notifying article creators to an AfD of this scale violates WP:CANVASS as it'd swing the result in an extremely disproportionate way? It is, after all, not necessary and only recommended. I'd suggest (for example) only notifying editors who have created 10 or more of these articles. Potentially notifying 100+ editors could seriously distort the outcome of the AfD. SplashScreen (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

::Id say not notifying them when nominating on this scale could be seen as disruptive to prove a point especially when the nomination is sketchy, I'm sure you don't mean it like that. If you feel that way then i would of suggested you only nominated a small amount to test the water but you didn't. Your nominating on an extremely large scale so not notifying them isn't good i suggest you do that at least as a common courtesy.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:::"The nomination is sketchy" is personal opinion. Why do all of these creators need to be nominated - surely the Wikipedia community can decide whether to keep/delete these articles for themselves without the (most probably) biased influence of the tens of people who created the articles. Why should I have nominated just a few when I feel they ALL foul foul of the policies? Whilst nominating one creator is constructive, nominating loads of them is not and skews the AfD in one direction. SplashScreen (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

::::No it is sketchy other than you having a personal distaste of these articles. I don't care for them eithier but i fully agree with the comments above. They should be notified as even a basic common courtesy. There is a thing of testing the water you will have seen there has already been a discussion previously equally would you have even let one editor know if i hadn't brought this up. Oh and stop posting to my talk page no need to do so as replying here.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::You assuming bad faith does not mean that you can WP:CANVASS. SplashScreen (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

::::::Read that as well as your other polices above which you haven't. Advising creators that you nominated there article for Deletion is not canvasing. You haven't told any of them. Im not Campaigning or anything I'm not telling them what to do posting in a non neutral manor campaigning for votes or anything the like. Im using the standard notification template which you should of done. Lets cover that Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand. Nope they all have a connection and a reason to be notified now given most are created by the same few that is not an excessive amount either. Campaigning posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner. No not doing that. Vote-stacking no. and finally Stealth canvassing no. Now there is no bad faith on my part either you advise them as the common courtesy that you should have or someone else can if you had nominated a sample at a time then there would be hardly anyone to advise.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:::::::It would be common courtesy, the same as done for most other articles up for deletion, to notify the creator of an article by a neutrally worded templated message. I would expect such a notification for an article I had created, and so would most active editors. It is clearly not a violation of WP:CANVASS. A stealthy process of AFD'ing these article without any such notifications would likely end up at Deletion Review, if they were in fact deleted, since the article creator might have wished to search for and add reliable sources to answer complaints about a lack of references, or to otherwise improve the article. The encyclopedia benefits when article creators are given that opportunity. Edison (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Essentially for the exact same reason as Edison. Mass nomination and reasoning isn't clear so does feel like it WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Articles are sourced and don't seem to fully meet his points if at all. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:*"reasoning isn't clear" - I'm sorry to be rude, but can't you read? SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

::Im not going to reply to you anymore. You are being rude and not following good practice in anyway shape or form. Read Edisons reply and mine other than you don't like it don't really meet those points adequately. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - if the articles are so wonderfully sourced, how come some of them have been tagged for 5 years? SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Rather than the rest of us having to click through the 246 or so articles you mass-nominated, please identify the ones "tagged for 5 years" that you are referring to. Then it would be an interesting exercise to look for reliable sources with significant coverage. I do not view simple TV Guide listings of what happens or who guest stars on a particular night as sufficient, and I look for commentary about the schedule as such. In similar deletion discussions in the past, I have found books, magazine articles, and columns by New York Times TV critics and major news magazines discussing the choices made in setting up schedules (Up against "Ed Sullivan" in its prime? Why didn't the schedulers leave "program x" on Thursday night where it was doing ok against the other networks?) Choices as to what programs are on what night are strategic moves which have greatly influenced viewership, and the schedules, particularly prime time and late night, have gotten multiple instances of significant coverage in years I have investigated. Edison (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for the reasons well-articulated by Edison. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting the network schedule is not a good idea. Everyone here had good reasons why? 68.44.51.49 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per historical value and, Splash, WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not a guideline nor a policy, so you cannot nominate articles using that text as your support, since they have no weight on discussions or actions. Cheers. —Hahc21 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

:WP:ONLYESSAY. SplashScreen (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Per the comments above. — Tomica (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and snowball close. all the comments listed above. ApprenticeFan ^work 03:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Edison put it alot better (and with a much cooler head) than I could to this textbook example of a "I don't like it" nomination. The fancruft essay is not policy, and certainly doesn't involve basic industry information like a television schedule in the least, and a proper notice to frequent contributors to these articles is certainly not canvassing at all. Finally, no sense WP:BEFORE was followed at all by the nominator. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The television industry is a big part of American pop cultural history. Looking back at these schedules is helpful in learning about shows, networks, and the industry. Sure some sources could provide analysis, but the history aspect is what makes this a useful part of Wikipedia. Some people actually like to read about this topic. It's quite informative! --Mtjaws (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Edison's well-thought reasons. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. As all of these network series are notable, these are indexes of article topics organized by a defining characteristic—the seasons and programming blocks in which they aired. Further, these network schedules are highly notable topics in their own right. Broadcast programming decisions, such as on which day to air a program, what shows lead in and out from a series on the same network, and against which series are a show competing, are a core part of the history of network television and are analyzed extensively in media criticism as a topic in and of itself. Often the very success or failure of a show will hinge upon its time slot; see Friday night death slot, for example, or look at the extensive commentary regarding NBC's decision to replace its traditional 10 pm drama block with the The Jay Leno Show every weeknight. I can't help but read such a nomination as arising from mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or perhaps simple ignorance of the topic. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Not only have the creators of the articles not been notified but it seems that some of the articles haven't been tagged, e.g. 1953–54 United States network television schedule. I was contemplating closing this myself per WP:SNOW but the logistics of unpicking this mess are beyond my experience. Warden (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

::Only two of six were advised and that was by me. Apparently that is canvasing!. Some articles were still being tagged over 24 hours after the nomination.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep: These are notable topics, with wide usage throughout Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 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.