Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States

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 of the debate was Delete all. Xoloz 02:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of channel 20 TV stations in the United States[edit]

Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. We have no article on the topic of Channel 20 TV stations in the United States because being assigned to channel 20 tells you nothing intrinsic about the nature of the station. if someone had written a meaningful, sourced, encyclopedic article on "channel 20 TV stations in the United States" this list could be a section within the article. But there is no such article, because this is not an encyclopedic topic. This should be a category, not an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason, I am also nominating:

I just noticed that most of these lists include cable channel assignments mixed in with broadcast channel assignments without any indication of which is which, which makes it quite an intriguing intellectual puzzle to devise any plausible use for the list. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the phrase most of, for those that aren't, can't you just edit them so that they are?? Georgia guy 02:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you're asking, but... the articles on channels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 say they include broadcast stations only; 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 13 say they include broadcast and cable; 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 are simply lists without explanation other than the title; 19 and 20 simply repeat the title without explaining whether a "channel 20 television station" means broadcast or cable channel. I am not sure how anyone could "just" edit them without individually checking every station on the list. It could be argued that the lists which only include broadcast stations are slightly more useful than the others because have some use in determining whether there is a possibility of the stations interfering with each other, but a category would do just as well. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you could just remove the cable stations, couldn't you?? Georgia guy 02:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't even see any reason for a category of this - being channel 20 is, as you say, meaningless. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anyone voting in this discussion, please negotiate with CoolKatt number 99999 for a good decision on what to do with UHF channel lists. Georgia guy 01:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, indiscriminate. --Coredesat 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. -- Jared Hunt 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less than a day old, has not been given sufficient time to develop. Could potentially become useful, eventually. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Plenty other of list of TV stations by other classifications, such as state, network affiliation, others. CoolKatt number 99999 02:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This might be helpful for people without cable, but if you have cable these numbers rarely mean anything anyway. I like the idea, but unfortunately it's too confusing to salvage. Danny Lilithborne 02:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. These stations on each list have no significant connection with each other. For two stations in different cities to be on the same channel would only be meaningful if viewers were to carry their television sets from one city to another without being willing to change the channel on their sets when they arrive. By contrast, stations in the same geographical area have the same potential viewership, and stations with the same network affiliation broadcast many of the same programs as each other. --Metropolitan90 02:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could also, of course, be useful to a Martian with a very sensitive television set and excellent powers of concentration in deciding whether he would prefer to view the thirty stations mixed together on channel 4 or the thirty stations mixed together on channel 5. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all Seriously, WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.I really truly fail to see the point in these lists. Viridae 02:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here is the chronology:
    1. Someone created List of channel 6 TV stations in the United States a long time ago and it was never Afd'd.
    2. Someone added lists to the dis-ambiguation pages Channel 2 through Channel 6, and when I saw the lists, I moved them to list titles.
    3. Later, I was hoping channels 10 through 13 were going to be created similarly, and 10 11 and 13 were created, and finally I created 12, letting CoolKatt number 99999 know it. Later, CoolKatt number 99999 started UHF. Georgia guy 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I also say that I have proposed on the village pump some info about Wikipedia lists that I want to know what a good general rule is.) Georgia guy 02:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of them are new articles. I don't like the idea of nuking articles without giving them a chance to develop.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was the one who created the lists on the Channel 2-5 and 7-9 dab articles. They seem more "in place" there in my opinion - I meant it for someone in, for instance, Atlanta, who wanted info on WSB-TV, and who would blindly type in "channel 2", to get a link to the article. It was only meant to be a dab list, which also explains why stations that used their cable channel in their branding were on the list (i.e. WZVN would be referred to in the community more as "channel 7" than "channel 26"). As a "list" article rather than a dab page it seems less useful. I have no opinion on the deletions of the articles as they are now (hell, I'd even lean towards delete if forced to choose), but would support a merge back into the "Channel x" articles. Kirjtc2 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, based on your comment, if you think it makes sense to have lists at simply Channel X titles, it makes sense to have List of channel X TV stations in the United States re-direct, doesn't it?? Georgia guy 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete including cable channels on some of these makes them spectacularly not useful. The original disambig wasn't a bad idea, but it sounds unlikely that someone would be searching for a TV station on Wikipedia without knowing that channel numbers are regional. I really can't see any use for this. Opabinia regalis 03:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very arbitary criteria. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly useless, numeral codes have got nothing to do with the station, insufficient nexus between items to form a useful list. Jammo (SM247) 05:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another solution could be to merge the lists into one article called "List of television stations by channel number." CoolKatt number 99999 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that would be far too long, even if limited only to US free-to-air channels. Jammo (SM247) 05:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan and other arguments. GassyGuy 05:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, is there some significance to being on channel number 20/19/18/17...? I really can't see any point to this. - Motor (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Pointless lists are not what Wikipedia is for. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links, which these articles are and will forever more be. Batmanand | Talk 09:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot, arbitrary listcruft. Deizio talk 12:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You could move these to CoolKatt number 99999's user namespace. Georgia guy 13:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the unencyclopediac garbage. Unless, of course, CoolKatt 99999 want's to put it in his/her userspace.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, listcruft. ~Chris /e@/iar/beans/dbad/ 14:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all and categorize. ~ trialsanderrors 18:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for this user. Please clarify the meaning of the word categorize You cannot categorize deleted articles. Georgia guy 18:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It means create categories for TV stations by channel rather than put them in a list, if that serves any purpose. Come to think of it, probably not. ~ trialsanderrors 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Entirely useless list. Tevildo 18:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate info... and cablecruft? Anand(talk) 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good heavens. I've seen a lot of lists nominated, but these ones take the prize. Tony Fox (speak) 19:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I helped add to one of them and would hate to see work lost. Besides, if we removed it, certain other links would have to be axed, like Channel 4 (disambiguation). That has some problems. You have to go through 4 (disambiguation) to Channel Four, then to the disambiguation there to the list. But yet, I also say Speedy delete because it is discrimination. We could not merge this with world lists, because the only lists that could be used are VHF and UHF.That is discrimination. -Tracker <sup>([[User talk:TrackerTV|>talk)</sup>]] 19:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but these pages meet neither speedy keep nor speedy deletion criteria. -- Kicking222 03:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tony Fox. Vizjim 20:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator wishes to state that I think the lists are accurate, represent hard work, and were created in good faith. If the result of the debate is delete, the main contributor of each should be offered the option of having the articles userfied, in case they wish to rework the material into something different. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not a random collection of useless trivia. User:Angr 21:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind there are other TV stations lists too. So if we delete these, then those would have to be deleted too. CoolKatt number 99999 21:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point. Lists of stations in states or markets, or of network affiliates, are more notable because the bond between those stations is stronger (competition and being "sister stations" respectively) than just being on a random channel. Kirjtc2 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what? They are all still lists of TV stations. CoolKatt number 99999 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The difference is that a list of stations by affiliation or market means a lot more than just listing them by channel number. Would you call a list of stations with female news anchors whose last name begins with S "still a list of TV stations"? We've got to draw the line somewhere. Kirjtc2 15:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still, these lists are useful because channel numbers are an important aspect of the station. CoolKatt number 99999 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and Userfy(move all lists to CoolKatt number 99999's user space) as per Georgia guy's solution. Bwithh 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial at best, I'm sure people can identify the name of their local TV stations on their own. tmopkisn tlka 23:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize, if enough articles on the TV stations themselves exist to make categories worthwhile. --zenohockey 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These lists seem to be completely pointless and an indiscriminate collection of information. This is much different than a list of stations in a state or owned by a certain company or something like that. Channel number is, I believe, mostly arbitrary and I see no reason why stations should be sorted that way (who would care?) Grandmasterka 06:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing here that can't be conveyed just as well (or better) with a category. That is, to the extant that there is anything here at all. Eluchil404 10:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Indiscriminate collection of information. Vegaswikian 05:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about we redirect the pages to categories? CoolKatt number 99999 17:26, 30 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_channel_20_TV_stations_in_the_United_States&oldid=1142219902"