Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Coredesat 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1997-1998 United States network television schedule[edit]
Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Punkmorten 11:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yomanganitalk 12:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. PJM 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The mind boggles. Delete per nom this one and the rest of the series -
- 1995-1996 United States network television schedule
- 1996-1997 United States network television schedule
- 1998-1999 United States network television schedule
- 1999-2001 United States network television schedule
- 2000-01 United States network television schedule
and maybe more... OBM | blah blah blah 12:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm going to have to go with keep on this one. If you look there are listings going back to the late 50's-early 60's regarding network TV schedules. Wildthing61476 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure that's a good thing. If a more accurate reason is required, it fails WP:NOT: "Wikipedia articles are not... TV/Radio Guides"...although in this case with a historic lilt. OBM | blah blah blah 14:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that there are dozens of these pages indicates to me that somebody is genuinely interested in creating them, and frankly, I find them useful, since they represent historical facts, and are really no different than lists of who was in Congress for a particular year. It'd be one thing if they tried to keep you up to date as to what's on this week, but this is a historical perspective, and as such retains usefulness. I just wish somebody would do this for other countries. FrozenPurpleCube 14:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is an interesting set of articles and it could be a valuable resource for some users. --MatthewUND(talk) 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has historical value. Can't really be said to be a "TV guide" since the shows aired years ago. I think this is more a useful tool for research than it is indiscriminate information. --Hyperbole 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Manticore. A lot of people actually care about this sort of stuff. --Aaron 16:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep the whole series Index pages like these are VERY useful, especially as part of a cohesive project. The relevent Wikiproject states on its project page: "This is to guide the structure and normalize the standard of articles dealing with the Television medium and television series or other forms of episodic programs." This type of index page serves to guide and direct to the individual articles. Other lists like this are NUMEROUS and highly useful on wikipedia, and like all of those lists, deserve to be kept. Not to mention that under the most basic terms of notability (hundreds of thousands of people watched these TV shows) and verifiability (back issues of TV guide and other sources make it so) also points to keep. Finally, the guidline that Wikipedia is not a TV guide is designed to keep people from creating huge numbers of articles dealing with every individual episode of a TV show. Merely noting that a show existed, and when it aired, does not fall under that segment of WikiPedia guidelines. --Jayron32 17:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete All. Whether an article is "useful", "interesting" or part of a wiki-project, these are not encyclopedic criteria. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, as well as not being a tv guide. A directory is a directory is a directory; being "old" doesn't change that fact. If being "old" makes them "historic", then a bus timetable from 1953 or entries in a 1967 yellow pages is encyclopedic. The fact that the articles under AfD consideration are like "numerous" other articles is no reason to keep - multiple wrongs do not make a right. At most, these might be worth moving over to wikibooks, but they certainly have no place here. In their present form, they may also constitute original research. Agent 86 18:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Except that bus timetables from 1953 or yellowpages from 1967 do not themselves contain notable information. Indices of notable information are notable by extension. For example; NFL teams are notable, so an article that listed, say, the league records from a particular year, listing where each team finished in each division and their W/L record is also notable; it is a way of organizing notable information in an alternate fashion that provides a unique perspective that would not exist except for the list. It is true that in this example, we could list a teams win/loss record on THAT teams main entry page; just like we can note that a particular show aired on a particular network in a particular timeslot on THAT shows main article; however, such notations also lack the context that a list like this provides. For all that say "delete": Please check WP:LIST to see the consensus standard guidline for lists. I quote the relevent passages from that Guideline page here:
- 1) "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists. " -- This list is a structured list, which is recognized in WikiPedia guidelines as a valuable information source
- 2) "Lists can be used as a table of contents," -- This list serves this purpose: It directs people to specific articles about specific shows, within a certain context (in this can when they aired)
- 3) "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes....Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of pages from it, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available." -- Lists like this can be useful when working around a topic. By using a list like this, the relevent WikiProject can keep track of which information is still needed, what is happening to articles, etc. etc.
- reply Except that bus timetables from 1953 or yellowpages from 1967 do not themselves contain notable information. Indices of notable information are notable by extension. For example; NFL teams are notable, so an article that listed, say, the league records from a particular year, listing where each team finished in each division and their W/L record is also notable; it is a way of organizing notable information in an alternate fashion that provides a unique perspective that would not exist except for the list. It is true that in this example, we could list a teams win/loss record on THAT teams main entry page; just like we can note that a particular show aired on a particular network in a particular timeslot on THAT shows main article; however, such notations also lack the context that a list like this provides. For all that say "delete": Please check WP:LIST to see the consensus standard guidline for lists. I quote the relevent passages from that Guideline page here:
- List articles are not just a large group of articles. When you say "The fact that the articles under AfD consideration are like "numerous" other articles is no reason to keep - multiple wrongs do not make a right." you ignore the place that list articles, especially lists of notable and verifiable information such as this, have within WikiPedia. List articles individually must meet standards of notability and verifiablity just like all other articles do. As a class, however, the entire concept of a list article is NOT up for debate and is a valuable and accepted part of the WikiPedia structure. --Jayron32 20:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1953 Bus timetables and 1967 Yellow pages are nowhere near as important as nationwide TV programs. Comparing these things doesn't do your argument credit. And it's not OR, as it's merely facts verifiable by reading old copies of TV Guides, not theory on what a given TV show's presence or cancellation might mean. Which itself is the subject of some research, and probably belongs on some page or another. FrozenPurpleCube 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how an old outdated TV Guide is of any more use or importance than an old bus schedule or yellow pages entry. Importance is relative. Old bus schedules are of significance to an urban planners and social historians. The 1990 Thomas Cook train schedule might be of importance to train historians. Yet neither of these are encyclopedic. No importance is asserted in these so-called articles. The mere assertion that they are important, without saying how they could possibly be important, isn't enough. I have seen no citation of any policy that supports their inclusion, but there is enough policy to support their deletion. Agent 86 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the point entirely. Read the section at WP:LIST. Are you claiming that TV shows, seen and remembered by millions of people, are not themselves notable? If TV shows are notable, then by extension LISTS of TV shows are notable as well, especially provided the structure of this particular list. An article does not have to assert importance by stating in plain language "I am important". It is important because the information it contains is notable and verifiable. Lists are a vital component of WikiPedia structure. Any claim that this list is not notable is an indictment of accepted WikiPedia practice, unless you are claiming that network TV shows are not notable. Either proposition is ludicrous (that Lists should never be part of WikiPedia or that TV shows should never be part of WikiPedia) Lists are important. TV Shows are notable. Therefore lists of TV shows should be kept.--Jayron32 21:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be confused. I mentioned the old TV guide's as evidence that this was not Original Research. Why you attached it to importance I don't know. The importance comes from being "nationwide TV programs" . Can you explain to me how that is uninmportant? It would be one thing if this list covered local programs. But it doesn't. It is about national TV networks, who also have other lists of programs broadcast on them. See: List of programs broadcast by American Broadcasting Company, List of programs broadcast by CBS, List of programs broadcast by NBC, List of programs broadcast by FOX, List of programs broadcast by UPN, or heck, the Category: Television Series by Network. All this is list and the others represent is a collation of that data in yet other form, this time providing the useful detail as to what date a program is on. To make this unimportant, you'd have to argue that all of those pages are unimpotant. Sorry, but I don't think you're going to get there. FrozenPurpleCube 21:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with encyclopedic lists. My only "indictment" is of the nominated articles, or any non-encyclopedic list cloaking itself in WP:LIST when it does not meet the criteria of WP:NOT. You can attribute all sorts of arguments to me that I haven't made, but the long and the short of it is that WP:LIST is a guideline that concerns itself mostly with style and offers little in relation to the determination of what is encyclopedic, as opposed to the policy that is WP:NOT. If one is to go strictly by the criteria of WP:LIST, I suspect almost anything, properly formatted in the manner provided for in LIST, would merit inclusion. I won't even get into the fallacy that all television shows are inherently notable (let alone "remembered") or that a complilation of "notable" things makes the compilation notable. Agent 86 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so when are you going to respond to the issue of Nationwide television programs? And what argument do you have to suggest that the time/year of a program being broadcast isn't notable? Every year, in case you didn't know, there are articles in papers, in TV Guide, about what's on and when. Every year. It would be one thing if these pages tried to cover every channel, including cable and independents. But they're restricted to the major networks of the time. If that's not enough specificity, then frankly I don't know what will be. FrozenPurpleCube 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with encyclopedic lists. My only "indictment" is of the nominated articles, or any non-encyclopedic list cloaking itself in WP:LIST when it does not meet the criteria of WP:NOT. You can attribute all sorts of arguments to me that I haven't made, but the long and the short of it is that WP:LIST is a guideline that concerns itself mostly with style and offers little in relation to the determination of what is encyclopedic, as opposed to the policy that is WP:NOT. If one is to go strictly by the criteria of WP:LIST, I suspect almost anything, properly formatted in the manner provided for in LIST, would merit inclusion. I won't even get into the fallacy that all television shows are inherently notable (let alone "remembered") or that a complilation of "notable" things makes the compilation notable. Agent 86 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how an old outdated TV Guide is of any more use or importance than an old bus schedule or yellow pages entry. Importance is relative. Old bus schedules are of significance to an urban planners and social historians. The 1990 Thomas Cook train schedule might be of importance to train historians. Yet neither of these are encyclopedic. No importance is asserted in these so-called articles. The mere assertion that they are important, without saying how they could possibly be important, isn't enough. I have seen no citation of any policy that supports their inclusion, but there is enough policy to support their deletion. Agent 86 20:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all this is actually, as odd as it is, useful and of historical value.-- danntm T C 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral I might have leaned towards keep, but there are major league WP:V concerns here, not to mention that shows routinely get slipped in and out of various time slots as their level of success dictates. Also, what was played in Monday Night Footballs place in the off season, etc? I am not entirely sure this list is maintainable. Resolute 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What verifiability concerns do you have exactly? Anybody who wants to read old copies of Network TV Schedules need only check archives of TV Guide or USA Today, or your local paper which may well have covered what the networks announced as part of their scheudule. Yes, you might have to leave your house to do it, but you can verify anything on this page if you want to take the time to do it. Yes, this won't cover every week of the year, but that's not the purpose of this list, and if it did try to cover things like that, it would become indeed become a TV Guide. That might be a bit much, though I'll note many of the individual TV articles do mention schedule changes. FrozenPurpleCube 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. It isnt my job to research the veracity of this article, it is the editors. Resolute 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what you don't seem to get is that those sources are undoubtedly out there, and if nobody has bothered to specifically add it in the article, well, for me, it's a so-what. They still exist, and at best, it's a call for a tag asking editors to add them, not grounds for outright deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and in case you havent noticed, I did not vote delete. I merely said that the lack of verifiable sources and the incompleteness of the list prevent me from leaving a keep vote. Resolute 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And just so it is clear, I think you are mistating the case when you say what you did. There are verifiable sources, they're just not cited. That's not a major-league concern here, that's a minor-league one, if not sandlot, because this is not a case of thought or argument, just simple, non-contentious facts. If you want to say you think these pages should cite their sources, fine, but try to be more clear, as that was not clear from your original post. Sorry, but it wasn't, not to me. FrozenPurpleCube 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, and in case you havent noticed, I did not vote delete. I merely said that the lack of verifiable sources and the incompleteness of the list prevent me from leaving a keep vote. Resolute 23:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And what you don't seem to get is that those sources are undoubtedly out there, and if nobody has bothered to specifically add it in the article, well, for me, it's a so-what. They still exist, and at best, it's a call for a tag asking editors to add them, not grounds for outright deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 23:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. It isnt my job to research the veracity of this article, it is the editors. Resolute 23:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What verifiability concerns do you have exactly? Anybody who wants to read old copies of Network TV Schedules need only check archives of TV Guide or USA Today, or your local paper which may well have covered what the networks announced as part of their scheudule. Yes, you might have to leave your house to do it, but you can verify anything on this page if you want to take the time to do it. Yes, this won't cover every week of the year, but that's not the purpose of this list, and if it did try to cover things like that, it would become indeed become a TV Guide. That might be a bit much, though I'll note many of the individual TV articles do mention schedule changes. FrozenPurpleCube 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep all Notable, easily verifiable, and useful in research. No convincing reason to delete that I can think of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's interesting, verifiable, historic, and a very useful way to see how different television programs (many of which already have their own Wikipedia articles), were connected to each other within a particular timeframe. --Elonka 23:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. While a list of notable things doesn't automatically make the list notable or of encyclopedia value, I believe these have that value. They're a valuable historical perspective on not only what TV programs were airing in a particular year, but on what days, times, networks and programmed with shows on the same network and against shows on other networks. It shows what programs were appropriate at family and late-night hours, what was programmed during lucrative days, and what shows lasted in particular timeslots. Gotyear 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all It was a happy time for our family to get together for the popular trio of Nanny and the Professor, The Partridge Family and The Brady Bunch. But what years was that and which night? Wikipedia easily—and expectedly—provided answers. My biggest question was, Why are some years missing? So I contributed. Granted, few people will ever care about the articles in their entirety, not like more traditional articles such as United States Bill of Rights. Perhaps articles like List of Olympic medalists in badminton and 1953-54 United States network television schedule seem unencyclopedic because they don't explicitly provide context, notability or evaluation. If that's the chief objection, perhaps they should be tagged as stubs? — EncMstr 01:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. I find this format an encyclopedic method of organizing this information, imparting information not to program your VCR/Tivo, but to see the schedules of major national TV networks in a particular year. I'd argue that listing the programs airing nationwide in a particular year is culturally significant. The list is essentially a List of TV programs by year. It further organizes them by day, time and channel; this grid is intuitive and familiar. I wouldn't mind them being tagged as stubs to provide more information about the seasons they're in, and of course to verify with formal citations. TransUtopian 21:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments: I got here via the See also in Television program, and was instantly interested in the juxtaposition of which programs were airing on which times & days, especially for the years before I was born.
- Some do have short intros which put into context and arguably assert their importance. Additional information unique to each season, such as shows that move or are changed mid-season can be added. The ones with the years in xxxx-xxxx form can be changed to xxxx-xx form if they survive afd so thay'll fit the navigation bar fitted in some of the years. Gotyear 01:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. This survived a former AFD attempt a year or so ago, but it was nominated on another year page. Maybe I should create a Wikiproject just for this. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 06:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - Historical significance. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. It's not in serious dispute that American network television series are per se notable, and so if simple lists of such series would be appropriate, the only remaining question I see is whether these schedule lists are a useful alternative means of organizing that information. I say yes. Scheduling blocks do show meaningful relationships among programs, and these lists could be useful for pop culture historians. What is great about list/table articles is that they allow for multiple ways of presenting and organizing information (unlike categories, which diminish in usefulness as they multiply and compete), so we can list cities by alphabetical name or by population density, and we can list television series by originating network or by broadcast schedule. Postdlf 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. I have been using Wikipedia for many many things for several years. When I have a question about ANYTHING I check Wikipedia first. While the policy of "notability" and "verifiable" are very good standards there seems to me a conflict with that in some of the projects I have seen on Wikipedia (e.g. pages for state legislators, articles completing timelines). These projects imply a desire of comprehensiveness to some degree. Those things said, these articles seem to fall into line with the comprehensive drive of other projects. Verifiability? Yes, difficult. So, to me, it seems the question here calls for a balance between Verfiability and/or Notability vs Comprehensive and leading resource. And one more point to the idea of Comprehensive Resource: many other Wikias also imply a similar drive...things like Lyrics library, etc.tony garcia 18:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- regarding verifiability FYI, verifiability in this case is actually pretty straightforward. There are already published books that outline major network prime time schedules (I have one on my bookshelf at home, can't remember the exact title.) Simply citing the appropriate page of such a book would be sufficient reference. Another printed source is to look up major newspapers from the season in question, most of which have published television schedules that can be cited. So verifiability is not an issue in this case, aside from having an editor willing to take the time to actually add the reference to the article. Dugwiki 16:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Historical prime time network television listings are a non-trivial way to index and compare some of the most important pop cultural works of a given period. Want to know what people were interested in watching or doing or thinking about in 1976? The prime-time network schedules of that year give you a nice insight. Notable information worth keeping. Dugwiki 21:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per Manticore. Markovich292
- 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.