Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 December 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Given that there is a directly on-issue policy based on broad community consensus, in this case WP:NOTTVGUIDE, telling us that our articles are not "electronic program guides", the "keep" opinions would need to be very persuasive and well-grounded in policy. That is not the case. Only Levivich (somewhat joined by Postdlf) makes a valid argument by attempting to persuade us that these are "historically significant program lists and schedules", but I don't see their argument that a random range of some 20 years is "historically significant" convincing many people here. The other "keep" opinions simply refer to past discussions instead of making arguments of their own; they thereby fail to address the WP:NOTTVGUIDE issue that is the elephant in the room here. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which is misapplied in the discussion), "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", which means that merely referring to past AfDs is not a strong argument to make in the face of clear policy compliance issues. The "keep" opinions here must therefore be given significantly less weight for mostly not making any policy-based arguments. Sandstein 11:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to AFD for 1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), TV schedule with minimal sourcing.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Trivialist (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per discussion and arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), to which this nomination obviously adds absolutely nothing. And restore the one deleted based on two participants here. postdlf (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Unsourced for a number of years, no evidence of notability and no effort whatsoever to bring these up to standard despite previous AfD's. Most of the previous 'keep' votes were swayed towards WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy. Ajf773 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- That's rather dismissive of what were very substantial AFDs on this content with high participation, not a rebuttal of the arguments or sources presented in them. I'd rather not copy and paste all of those comments directly here, as they should be considered incorporated by reference. See also WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please don't exaggerate. The AfD you linked to had 7 people. Not substantial and not that much different from this one. Also, your link is an essay so has zero weight in any discusion, but if you are already reading that page, see WP:VALINFO. These pages fail WP:V (policy), they are fail WP:NOTTVGUIDE (policy) and they fail to show any WP:N (guideline). --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit conflicted. I could see some value in this topic, but the current list do nothing to establish that value. They don't even try and source the small amount of information they do have (at least on the 6 I randomly checked). I think that the minimum, these can be merged into decades so 1960s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1970s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1980s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1990s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 2000s United States Saturday morning network television schedule and 2010s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, which will reduce the ~60ish pages to only 6. --Gonnym (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a probably better alternative to decade lists, there are also parent articles for each network season, such as 1960–61 United States network television schedule; whether these should be merged to those is a question of WP:SIZE. But there are clearly many alternatives to deletion, and not a plausible argument that this information is unverifiable notwithstanding the current state of sourcing in each article. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Another alternative might be to consolidate the prime time, weekday, late night, and Saturday morning pages into sections within one page per TV season, e.g., 1950–51 US network television schedule would have sections for prime time, weekday, etc., within one article. Combining an entire decade into one article may make that article unwieldy. Levivich (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe these, in their current state, fail to show notability. I also don't think they can be notable in the current article scheme, but maybe an article that deals with programming in each decade, which has much more context to it, could be. But that is not an argument that this article could be better, its an argument that this article is not and never will be that article. As I've stated above, they also fail WP:V and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. As to comment above, those articles aren't any better. They are a giant WP:NOTTVGUIDE and while the article you linked to has some references, the two inline ones, one has almost nothing to do with the article content, the other does not support notability (for the subject), it just gives verification for the ratings. --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTTVGUIDE was addressed at length in past AFDs on this content (as was notability and verifiability for network schedules generally). Suffice to say here that by its own terms NOTTVGUIDE makes clear that historic lists are not violations. So unless you're a time traveler... postdlf (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dispute the claim that this has any historic significance as it requires. Also, your argument just falls short when it's a matter of fact, that these lists are created for every year, regardless of "history" or "significance", see 2018–19 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). By this one can assume, that every TVGUIDE that has been shown is "historic" and thus exempt, which is really not what the exemption meant. --Gonnym (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - When it comes to U.S. TV network schedules, they are, and that's exactly what was found at the prior AFDs. Something else instead is contemplated by NOTTVGUIDE. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep I do think merging these into by-decades lists would be better, and that generally for at least US television, these schedules usually help in understanding programming competition (but I can't recall how bad that was for SatAM). There's definitely also the history from the golden age of animation to the death of SatAm programming that these help to support (eg [1]) Probably need some legwork to get books etc to better support. --Masem (t) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I cannot believe that this is a serious way to catalogue TV programs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for the reasons listed in the 2007 RfD discussion (result: default keep), 2012 RfD discussion (result: keep), and 2015 RfD discussion (result: keep), and the links in those discussions to outside articles discussing the significance of TV scheduling. WP:NOTTVGUIDE says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," and these TV schedules are historically significant. Television is one of our primary methods of mass communication and cultural transmission, and the first 100 years of television is still "early television." The schedule of early TV broadcasts seems no less relevant than an early modern Olympics schedule (FA-class), the dates/years of performances during Shakespeare's lifetime (B-class), or a schedule of who was printing what where in the first 100 years of the printing press (B-class). WP:V is Verifiability; these schedules are verifiable, and are sourced in at least some (many?) of the schedules. I'm a new editor and don't understand all these policies, but I thought inline sourcing isn't required, and a lack of sourcing is a reason to expand an article, not delete it. Levivich (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," ... please note the emphasis on the word may, it doesn't automatically exclude these from being classified as WP:NOT especially without some significant third party sources. Since none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever, perhaps you are willing to provide proof of verifibility. I'm assuming the editor mostly responsible for tabulating these historical TV listings have 40+ year old TV guides tucked away somewhere. After three AfD's, nobody has been able to provide this fundamental content thus far. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best evidence that these TV schedule articles are verifiable is that many of them have references listed. (Are 18 examples enough?) I agree "may" is permissive not mandatory, but "none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever" is not accurate. Additionally, as you said, TV Guide is a reliable source for TV listings. (And you can buy old ones online; they're collectibles now.) TV listings were also published in newspapers, some of which are available online, although some (like NYTimes) are behind a paywall. There are also websites that have historical listings (reliability unknown). In addition to TV Guide and newspapers, there are books published with old schedules, which are often the sources listed in these articles. For example, The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946–Present, which won a National Book Award in 1980. These TV listings are historically significant, verifiable, do not violate any wikipolicy, and all previous AfDs resulted in keep. Why should these pages be deleted? Levivich (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A TV guide showing the schedule is the definition of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which also explicitly mentions Electronic program guide, which this is the exact same thing. Think these are notable, then create and article with some context to show how it is notable. There is not even an article about "Saturday Morning programming" which even further emphasis the point that these listings are just WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also, if you try and prove a point, please try and actually be honest. Out of all the linked articles you gave with sources, only 2 belong to the nominated list and both use a copy/paste general reference to a book "The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984." with no in-line references and nothing to show that it actually talks about anything related. And again, just showing that the list exists does not show notability (and also small nitpick, the first discussion was "no-consensus" not "keep", there is a difference). --Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Saturday-morning cartoon, which was also raised in the previous AFD. You still are just repeating objections that were responded to there and in other related AFDs, rather than advancing the discussion, or engaging with the subject matter in a knowledgeable way as to why this is significant history for broadcast television and the particular series listed (again, which has been explained in prior AFDs on U.S. TV network schedules). You are also focused on the current state of sourcing rather than whether it is verifiable. General references are fine, btw, and certainly sufficient to demonstrate verifiability (not that there's a serious argument presented that this information is not verifiable); the lack of inline citations is not a delete-worthy flaw. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I view all the TV schedule articles as one group. I can see the value in merging them in one way or another, but I do not think they should be deleted. They're notable (the schedules, as schedules, receive significant treatment from reputable independent sources, of which there are examples above and in previous AfD discussions), and they're verifiable (if one wished, one could verify that show X aired on day/time Y, by reference to reliable independent sources that exist, such as TV Guide, newspaper listings, and other examples that are listed above and in previous AfD discussions). NOTTVG permits it as a historical schedule, so that's not a reason for it to be deleted. That the sources are not yet listed in all the articles is also no reason to delete them, in my opinion. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, "unless you go and add citations, we should delete this page." If it's notable, and it's verifiable, it should stay. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - per wording of WP:NOTTVGUIDE and reasons given in previous unsuccessful AfDs linked to by Levivich and Postdlf -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of WP:NOTTVGUIDE does not exclude these types of articles from being exempt from WP:NOT. Refer to above comments. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the wording in NOTTVGUIDE is there and seems most relevant to me. My opinion remains the same -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and restore the one that was already deleted as a ludicrous violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS attempting to override the consensus of multiple previous AfDs with vastly more participation (very curious to know why User:Sandstein closed it that way – without even relisting it once! – when this fact was quite obvious). I would not necessarily be opposed to User:Gonnym's merger proposal, as the number of pages may indeed be overwhelming for readers, but that can be discussed separately. Modernponderer (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted article was unsoured. Unless anyone can, and is willing to, adequately add sourced to it (as well as all the others) it should not be restored. Ajf773 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Violations of WP:NOTDIR and WP:V. If people interested in these articles can't be bothered to source them after, in some cases, nearly ten years, I don't see why Wikipedia should continue to indulge them. No sources = no article. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. The contested articles explicitly violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Results of past AfDs that might have ignored WP:NOTTVGUIDE are irrelevant; editors can often go wrong in their suggestions and thus form a misguided consensus: Wikipedia's aforementioned guidelines have not been affected. Editors who suggest Keeping the article are invoking those guidelines without providing the exact text in them that permits this type of lists to appear in Wikipedia. Of course, there is no such text.

The lack of supporting sources only amplifies the lists' lack of encyclopaedic purpose: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not yet an indiscriminate listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (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.