Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels

Add links
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. Mackensen (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of Broadcast lists[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information -- specifically a directory or a TV/Radio Guide (these articles are one, or both) -- despite the level of utility of the articles, they are not within the guidelines of what should be included in Wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Articles are all grouped together due to content and style. If not a "guide", then definitely a simple directory -- either way, violates inclusion policy. /Blaxthos 14:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I would argue that the articles in question are not indiscriminate directories in that they only provide a list of what networks, content, or stations are included (not unlike List of newspapers or List of television stations in North America by media market; or outside of the media arena with entries like List of airlines or List of auxiliary Interstate Highways). This information initially was contained within the DirecTV article, and was broken out once it was realized how unwieldy the information is within the bounds of that single article. If this article was a full-fledged TV guide, I would agree with you completely, but given that this is completely outside of that realm, and more of an encyclopaedic list of what is included within the service, I have to strongly disagree with you, in that they do not violate WP:NOT. --Mhking 15:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It certainly is not a guide, but rather a list. I see nothing wrong with it being there, and don't think it violates WP:NOT in any way. If we delete this, we have to consider a lot of lists to be guides, and remove them as well. Gimlei 15:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are nominated due to being a directory, which is clearly defined as what wikipedia is not. /Blaxthos 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean useful or did you mean to vote delete? Kirjtc2 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meant useful. Wrote useless on accident.--Caldorwards4 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep network affiliate and satellite radio lists Complete and maintainable lists of notable stations and channels under logical groupings (network affiliation). I'm not so sure about the list of D*/E* channels since with only a few exceptions, they have every major channel available in the USA, and is probably a big duplication of some article I'm too much in a hurry to look up right now. Kirjtc2 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usefull. not paper. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful lists, encyclopedic. If you want these to go, then all lists of such types have to be sent to AFD as well. --Terence Ong (C | R) 15:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're useful for new users. --User:Phpcoder 3:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, they're useful. I left a comment on Talk:List of DirecTV channels#Why does it exist? about my thoughts. --myselfalso 17:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful information of interest to millions of people. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these aren't directories, it's actual content. --Bill.matthews 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per obvious utility. These lists do not fit into the directories prohibition in WP:NOT, they're not loosely-related, they're not a means for business, they are not program listings (ie TV Guide). hateless 17:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep all. DCEdwards1966 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep essentially as per Hateless. To my mind these particular lists do not meet the criteria in WP:NOT. --Matthew Humphreys 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - "Wikipedia is not censored against something you one day dislike.". MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all. They are clear violations of WP:NOT and specifically unencyclopedic directories. On another note, to all the editors who wish to keep these lists because other similar one's exist, please note that as I find those other directories, I will AfD. WP:NOT clearly forbids these sort of articles. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not trying to be difficult, but why are people using reasoning such as "well, if we delete X then we'll have to delete all these other articles too" ? Regardless of an article's usefullness, or how many other articles violate the same policy, if it violates a policy, it needs to go. "But Johnny did it too" never worked when trying to justify my actions to my mom... why is wikipedia any different? Wikipedia seems full of reasons for why it's okay to break policy on a per-case basis, but doesn't this trump the purpose of having a policy at all? Just because it's useful, or because it's done in other places, doesn't negate the issue at hand... or so I think. ;-) /Blaxthos 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an all too common argument nowadays. Justifying bad behavior (or in this case articles) by pointing to other bad behavior. It's childish, and illogical. It also paralyzes progress because at the end of the day, nothing can get done because there is always something or someone else mimicking the improper behavior. You have my full support on this AfD as it appears that these articles are flagrantly in violation of WP:NOT, not to mention the question of the notability of the articles as well. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, if you're going to apply the decision to one article, then you should apply them to all articles. This is not childish nor illogical. Believe me, look at the chaos of what happened at WP:SRNC. Article standards were scattered because there was no cohesive policy across WP:USRD, and hence there was complete chaos. The arguments over this even fall under WP:LAME. That's why I cited these other articles. I was pointing out that these other articles exist because of their usefullness related to the companies that make the product. DirecTV has a programming guide Wikipedia provides. This is not a TV Guide listing, this is simply a list of channels that the programmer has available through their sources. The same for XM, Sirius, and Dish. CBS, NBC, MNTV, CW, ABC, Fox, etc., made monetary deals with their affiliates. I've used those articles before in order to do research for my own purposes; hence the reason why I became involved in editing those pages. So, that was my point of bringing up those articles. More so, there is a such thing as WP:CCC. Consensus can change. Hence, policy can change. --myselfalso 20:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my point. It is childish because seeking to have one bad article stand out becaust there are five other bad articles is what a child does to stop a punishment from coming down. As said above, "Well Johnny did it too". It is illogical because, using the argument prevents anything from being done, since the argument can be recycled each time one attempts to solve a problem. In other words leaving six problems, when we can possibly deal with all problems if we did it one at a time, analyzing each on their own merits.Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. None of these lists are used as a promotional tool and all give information as to what/where it is offered. No one is told to buy either satellite radio, satellite television or watch such network affiliate.TravKoolBreeze Key author in List of XM Satellite Radio channels 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have totally misrepresented the section of WP:NOT to make your point. It explicitly states: "Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules etc., although mention of major events or promotions may be acceptable." These articles clearly violate WP:NOT.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsquire (talk • contribs)
Do you see any of these list as a resource for conducting business? None of these list are being used to promote, but are used for quick refrence information inwhich even the parent may not update on their website.TravKoolBreeze 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No where in the nomination is this brought up as an issue. The sentence you are using is irrelevant to this discussion. No one is claiming that the articles are serving as an advertisement. The nomination is based on the fact that Wikipedia does not allow TV or Radio guides, directories and/or schedules, which IMO is what these articles are.
Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. This what it explicitly meant in what Wikipedia is not for Directories. Thus without reading this, the whole discussion which these articles should exist would make no sense. TV/Radio Guide would be if any of the list are updated daily to show what is on and a directory is a list of contacts, i.e. phone numbers, email. None of these list do either, and all the list give information about said channel or affliate. TravKoolBreeze 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A pertinent quote from the Wikipedia is not a directory section of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference." (Emphasis mine) --Matthew Humphreys 19:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the best argument presented for keep. I don't view these articles as reference table, however reasonable people can disagree. Perhaps there should be some clarification on whether these articles fit into this exception on the WP:NOT page. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think "TV/Radio Guides" may be misinterpreted by those in favor of deletion. A TV guide lists upcoming programming, which isn't the case here. The mention of "upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, schedules" seems to back this up - these articles don't contain any of these. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've requested a clarification from the WP:NOT page on this issue. I don't see how these articles aren't directories, but I think since this is a policy question, if that issue can be clarified, it will really help this discussion. At least we moved on from, "well they're other articles like this one". Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Looking at a couple dictionaries, "directory" is defined as a list that includes phone numbers, addresses, and similar info. Without that information, I don't see how it would be considered a directory. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that WP:NOT prevents an article on a talk radio station listing the names of its programs. To me, that is what these articles, which list stations and their corresponding channels does. It fall under the similar info, as a channel can be defined as a networks address on the service provider. That being said, if I get a clarification on the policy page, I will gladly change my vote. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. A schedule of programs wouldn't be allowed (and looking now, there seem to be a number of TV and radio pages that have schedules), but listing some or all programs doesn't seem to be prohibited by NOT, and there seem to be quite a few pages that do exactly that. What part of NOT would indicate that an article about a network couldn't list shows on that network? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't use the word "schedule" but that was what I was talking about. Isn't a schedule a list of programs with times? To me a list of networks with corresponding channels is the same thing. Reasonable people can differ. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on that article were due to notability, and didn't address the "reference table" vs. "directory" issue although directory was on of the factors in its nomination. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong & Speedy Keep All: Not an advertisement, and provides important lists as to which channels in every market are affiliated with the networks listed. Has been worked on for months by many editors without any objection. Nate 20:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per everything mentioned above. --- RockMFR 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep All valid information, and not indiscriminate lists like some others. Plus, these lists will be changed to reflect Nielsen markets soon enough. Thistheman 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this information violates some policy, I'd say it was the policy that was flawed, not the information itself. FrozenPurpleCube 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep' A lot of people worked on those articles, why delete? How is it hindering or somehow hurting Wikipedia? If you were to look up DirecTv in an encyclopedia, wouldn't it be nice to see which channels it carries too? If not, then you might as well delete the DirecTv article and all tv station articles along with it. Rewt241
  • Comment -- Obviously there is massive community support to keep the articles. If my reading of the policy was incorrect (as it appears to have been), their nomination was only in good faith. The debate was educational for me, if nothing else.  :-) /Blaxthos 16:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (My comment is specific to DirecTV and XM as I am only familiar with those, so forgive me if this is too much of a generalization for the others.) These articles do not qualify as a "TV/radio guide" in that they do not list a programming schedule. Instead, they are tables of current channels, programming, and formats, as well as historical data not readily found elsewhere in such detail--including from the content provider. It would be a disservice to those who have researched and edited these articles as well as the community as a whole to remove such information. TopCat99 00:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only should these very useful lists be kept - I'd like to see more of them (for example, lists of CBS etc radio affiliates). PaulLev 03:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Patcat88 04:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep all. This is just trolling and vandalism via deleting proper encyclopedic articles. this is NOT Deletapedia. It's nonsense. Next, shall we nominate Main Page and List of NBC affiliates for deletion? This guy seems to not like lists of any kind. :) RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 17:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia should have every article— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.132.11 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 12 November 2006
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_DirecTV_channels&oldid=1137992864"