Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK)

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. MBisanz talk 10:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK)[edit]

List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTDIR, with consensus from WP:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels and WP:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination). Further to this, this particular article uses language ("recent additions are...") which suggest a blog-type article which might be being used to 'host' information rather than provide it. Not appropriate for Wikipedia, not useful, not notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I'm concerned, including channel numbers, and WP:CRYSTALBALL style references at the bottom, mean this article resembles an information factsheet from the various service providers, breaking WP:NOTDIR and numerous other policies along those lines. It's a channel guide article from whichever angle you look at it, and that's been the successful argument against so many of this kind so far. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and if the channel numbers were removed? Then what would we have? postdlf (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "station" = "channel". There is no distinction that I am aware of. A broadcast station is specific to a particular channel because that's the wavelength they are allotted (by the FCC in the U.S., by a similar agency in the UK I'd assume). postdlf (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • not where I come from. A "station" is BBC-America or ABC-Baltimore or FOX-Denver, and while a 'channel' is sometimes coloquially used as a synonym for "station", particularly over the air broadcast where the assignment of the "station" to a particular "channel" is fairly stable over long periods of time, "channel" is the number you set on your TV to get a particular station.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the fact is the channel and broadcast station are fixed together, by a regulatory agency that allots the station a particular radio frequency at which to broadcast, and that frequency corresponds to a particular fixed channel on your TV at home. The channel information is integral to the broadcast station and so when we're talking about what people pick up on their TV antenna (and not just whatever cable or satellite provider they have), it makes sense to identify the station as the channel. Which is why the channel numbers should remain in the list: the channel is why it's BBC One on channel 1, BBC Two on channel 2, Channel Four on channel 4, etc. It's obviously part of the stations' very identity, and as you conceded, it is "fairly stable over long periods of time". Regardless, if renaming this to "List of digital terrestrial television stations (UK)" and removing the channel identification just to satisfy the irrational hatred of the word "channel" would address your issues, yours is a slight complaint that obviously is no basis for deletion. postdlf (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR these do not belong in the encyclopedia. The media companies can provide their customers with their ever-changing channel lists without the help of an encyclopedia. In my opinion, there should be a CSD category for these types of ephemeral lists, as they do not further the goal of this project. - MrX 18:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is just a list of digital broadcast channels available in the UK, all of which are notable and all of which are integral to the subject of UK television broadcasting just as the many lists of broadcast television channels in the U.S. by state or city. These are those channels that are "receivable with a standard television aerial" and so are not specific to a particular content provider, which makes comparisons to the individual cable provider channel lineup lists inapt. I also would disagree with the claims that this is somehow an ephemeral list; it may be new in many aspects, given that digital television is new, but I doubt that UK broadcasters come and go or flip around the dial on a regular basis. In any event, harping on the inclusion of the channel numbers seems irrelevant, and these "delete" !votes so far seem to be operating from pure momentum from the cable provider channel lineup lists, and a superficial "channel guide" characterization rather than analyzing this very different list on its own merits according to the subject. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't resemble a provider channel lineup? It even says "EPG number" (electronic program guide) as one of the columns! -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not the channel lineup of a particular television provider, but rather all channels broadcast by everyone. So no, it is not a provider channel lineup. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But it is a channel lineup, and it's also an article which uses one section to inform people of upcoming channel changes. That's what an EPG is for, not Wikipedia. The latter is what a provider's website is for, not Wikipedia. Channels, channel numbers, forthcoming changes to line up - that says WP:NOTDIR to me doktorb wordsdeeds 18:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because you're obsessing over one thing it does, and not everything else it is. We do not delete content just because it might be useful in a particular unencyclopedic way; we delete it if it is only useful in a particular unencyclopedic way. Is List of television stations in New York any different in your view? It doesn't use the apparently forbidden word "channel". postdlf (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That New York list does not contain much useful information, so is acceptable. This nominated article contains channel numbers, in order, which breaks NOTDIR and USEFUL, and contains commercially relevant information on updates and alterations, which is against Wikipedia's general policies on what information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We should delete content when it has no place here doktorb wordsdeeds 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Did you really just argue that the usefulness of an article actually makes it more worthy of deletion, or that less useful articles are more appropriate merely because they are less useful? That's so insane of an idea, I'm not sure how to respond to it in a constructive manner. --Jayron32 20:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems a perfectly reasonable list to me. The launch of new channels generally receives coverage, and the historical existence of channels is encyclopedic. I don't see a problem here. It isn't a provider channel lineup as it is a list of all channels available in the UK. It isn't an EPG because there is no information on programmes in it. --Michig (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The key distinction here between this and the deleted articles is that those were channel guides to specific cable and satellite TV providers, this is just a list of available channels. Such lists are common in many contexts, and don't suffer from the same sorts of problems which were the primary motivation for deletion in the above, earlier deleted lists. Merely because some lists of channels don't belong at Wikipedia doesn't mean that every single one that happens to contain a list of TV channels is necessarily undesirable. Since this isn't tied to a specific channel listing for a specific cable company; it is just a navigational list for a bunch of otherwise notable articles, grouped in a logical way. It isn't functionally different than List of railway companies or List of rivers of Pennsylvania. --Jayron32 19:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. It contains numbers, in sequence, and commercially relevant details on forthcoming channels and channel changes. It is therefore a channel directory, which breaks WP:NOTDIR doktorb wordsdeeds 19:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you've already said that several times without building upon it in any deeper way, it really doesn't help to repeat that opinion. All you're doing is just showing how facile this nomination is, equivocating all lists of channels regardless of whether they are company-specific lineup guides or a whole country's licensed, broadcast television industry, and that at best you're criticizing this list for fixable issues (I don't think it even needs serious fixing). Your sentence above, that the list of NY broadcast stations is fine because it "does not contain much useful information", really highlights how poorly considered this nomination is, because the underlying subject of a region's broadcast television stations is the same. Could you please step back for awhile, see what other arguments people raise, and take some time to think about what differences there might be here between this and the cable channel lists? postdlf (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've said it numerous times because it's the core reason why I agree that this article should be deleted alongside all the others in this current 'tranche'. This article is essentially two non-suitable things in one - an EPG (not allowed on Wikipedia) and a commercial information/blog (through the month by month channel update/channel changes section, also not allowed on Wikipedia). I can't say it any other way doktorb wordsdeeds 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, your saying that because an article is regularly updated and cared for it isn't appropriate at Wikipedia? I am again at a complete loss at how to refute that other than to restate it for its self-evident lunacy. --Jayron32 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't use WP:UNCIVIL language. I'm saying that this article is against WP:NOTDIR for two main reasons, and this ties in with the consensus being built by the deletions for similar articles. It is not appropriate to have channel listings on Wikipedia. That's the policy we have in NOTDIR and the consensus from previous and current AfDs. It's not appropriate to have channel listings on Wikipedia because the information is already provided in a more suitable place - the subscribers television set for one - and it's not useful because someone looking for a specific channel may be misdirected if there's been a malicious or incorrect edit. Having an onscreen EPG is useful and appropriate, having a Wikipedia EPG is not. And as for "being updated makes it not useful" or however you've skewed my reasoning, I mean that it's not for Wikipedia to list forthcoming changes (some happening in 2013) to line-ups. That's for the television company to detail, not us. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ok. Three questions: 1) Are all lists of TV channels inappropriate at Wikipedia, yes or no? 2) If some lists of TV channels are appropriate, what would an appropriate list of TV channels look like and finally 3) Could this list be made appropriate by simply editing it (to remove inappropriate material)? If the answer to that last question is yes, then "Deletion is not cleanup" is an appropriate response: Fix the article or allow others to fix it. If we can create a reasonable article containing a list of UK TV stations, then things like moving this to an appropriate title and editing the article to be in compliance with WP:NOTDIR could be used. You haven't made any argument so far which favors deletion over simply fixing. --Jayron32 21:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Why do you come across as such a fan of these pages? Remember that AfD could be stopped tomorrow if we were all told that articles had to be cleaned up, rather than removed. By and large, channel line-ups are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This article and those currently nominate for deletion are all inappropriate. I think this article is beyond cleaning - it's a lot more complicated than just "select column, delete". It has been created and curated by editors who are using it as an alternative to the on-screen EPG they have through their television sets, and as such is a surrogate directory, something which could be snuck back into use if allowed to remain under a fudged compromise. I'd prefer deletion than clean-up to ensure uniformity across the TV channel categories. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • 1) I'm not a fan of these pages. The above ones were deleted just fine, and I don't object to them being deleted. 2) Lots of articles should be deleted via AFD, just not this one. 3) You have not answered my three questions. Let me reduce it to one: If there are lists of TV channels which are allowed at Wikipedia, what would one of those look like? --Jayron32 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I did answer your questions. I pointed out that this article would be hard to clean up because of its current set-up and would be better removed than retained. I'd prefer articles which gave only a bare minimum on television in countries (never regions, far too specific). The New York article above is probably as far as I'd go. I can't accept channel numbers, past and forthcoming changes, logos/idents, colour coding which invokes or replicates a commercial providers own on-screen coding, specific reference to the 'blocks' of channels which replicates a commercial providers on-screen coding, and so on. Bare and basic reference to television provision - acceptable, just. Detailed directories which fall foul of numerous policies? No, not at all. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Why are channel numbers allowed at List of television stations in New York but not in the above article? Why is color coding allowed in other Wikipedia lists (see List of New England Patriots seasons for one), but somehow the existence of color in this one makes it deletion worthy? Why is historical information about defunct TV stations not allowed here, but historical information about say, List of defunct rugby league clubs, allowed? Why does the "future channels" section cause the article to need to be deleted, when it could be removed if it is so bad? I am still perplexed that some intersection of styling choices, all of which are used over and over in other Wikipedia articles, takes this article into "deletion worthy" territory. There are no logos in this article. I am still at a loss to understand where this runs afoul of Wikipedia policy, when every objection you note only runs afoul of policy when it is in an article about a list of TV stations? --Jayron32 21:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I didn't realise that those numbers in the New York article were channel numbers. As that is the case, I will start an AfD for that article after writing this reply. Your other points are clouding the waters. Colours are used by digital television providers in the UK to distinguish (for example) sports channels from entertainment, childrens from news. Replicating colours in these articles is simply not acceptable - it's replicating an already existing service on Wikipedia, which is not what this project was designed to do. We have policies against it. If Wikipedia's sports category editors have chosen to use colours, that's up to them, it has nothing to do with this AfD. Rugby clubs have nothing to do with television channels. You know full well what point I'm making - to put "Next month, a new channel is to be launched" on Wikipedia is essentially doing the work of a commercial television provider, potentially breaks WP:OR and/or WP:CRYSTALBALL and might - at the extreme end of things - break WP:COI if someone linked to the industry is providing the information. WP:NOTDIR is the main principle for me on this, and this article breaks that policy, it's that simple doktorb wordsdeeds 21:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • How is a directory different than a list? --Jayron32 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • This article is a list which functions as a directory. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York has been created following our discussion doktorb wordsdeeds 21:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Excellent. You have several hundred more to go listed at Category:Lists of television channels by country and relevent subcategories. Have fun! --Jayron32 22:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • I am already aware of those articles, indeed there has been a concerted effort in related AfDs in linking many of them together. I'll happily make the case against them as I have done tonight here, and elsewhere during the last few weeks. It's worth noting that there is a clear consensus against these articles in the successful AfDs and those currently on-going. If Wikipedia has been used to collate hundreds of these in the past, now is as good a time as any to begin an operation of clean-up and/or removal. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • It'll be entertaining. --Jayron32 22:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - When I proposed/supported the other deletions, it was on the basis that it was a channel listing for a carrier, thus failing NOTDIR specifically as a guide for doing business. I fully support that we would allow lists of what channels are broadcasted within a country that was neutral to the provider as would be this list here. (Though I'd argue some columns like the EPG number or broadcast time are unnecessary). This is a different beast from the other previous AFDs. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP These channel lists are very useful references for channels available via the platform in question and this list is especially useful as it is for the over-the-air platform in the UK which is now available to everyone in the UK following the completion of digital switchover earlier this week.(Rillington (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I will not wade into this discussion, but just have a few questions. Is there anything of this article that is worthy of being on Wikipedia and could either be moved to another page/a new page? Secondly, as mentioned previously, is there an example available of what would be considered suitable for Wikipedia, as this, relating back to my first question, could serve as an example to help satisfy everyone? Finally, is this purely an issue on it being similar to a EPG - for example, would a cast list, including upcoming cast, for a TV programme be unsuitable for Wikipedia? Thanks. Adamiow (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basic lists such as this one of notable broadcast stations within a particular locale (i.e., a standard index of articles of a certain subject, per WP:LISTPURP or WP:CLN) have always been considered acceptable; none have ever previously been deleted at AFD.

      That this list also includes the channel on which these stations broadcast doesn't change that, because it's information that is integral to the station (and even if it wasn't, then we'd just remove it and boom, the list is "fixed"). The nominator's position to the contrary is without precedent or merit. There was a recent string of AFDs involving very different lists—channel lineups for individual cable companies that functioned as directories of their particular services and had no other informational value, hence violative of WP:NOTDIR. There is no sensible reason to treat lists of broadcast stations in the same way just because those stations happen to broadcast on certain channels. So that's where this stands: an AFD started on pure momentum (notice the "me too" voters, some apparently thinking this was still a list relating to some subscriber service for "customers", that stopped as soon as "keep" arguments were presented) riding roughshod over the distinction between the cable channel lineup lists and this index of notable broadcast stations. As long as we have articles on broadcast stations, we are going to list them by their location; "satisfying everyone" here is not going to happen nor should it be our goal because that would impair our coverage of this topic with no benefit to the encyclopedia.

      Re: the cast lists, I think that's irrelevant to the content here, but yes, it is standard for articles on TV series to include lists of their main cast (usually in the form of character lists) and sometimes to WP:SPLIT those off into separate pages when WP:SIZE becomes an issue. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I just went looking thought this encyclopaedia I edit for just this information. Very useful. Stephenb (Talk) 17:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments. Also the sentence "The most recent channels to launch" should be removed. Powergate92Talk 19:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an obvious distinction between List of DirecTV channels (which was deleted) and List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK): a list of Direct TV channels will only be useful to readers who subscribe to Direct TV's subscription-based satellite service, and this type of list is ephemeral: it will change based on the whims of the company. Such a list will always require upkeep. List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK), however, contains information that pertains to the entire UK television industry, helpfully listed in an organized, meaningful way. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is an encyclopedia nor a directory of TV channels or anything else.--Charles (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...except that we have encyclopedia articles on individual TV channels/stations. postdlf (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And they are magnets for unsourced cruft. That apart they have categories so a list is redundant.--Charles (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...which is incorrect because the category cannot be annotated in the way the list can or organized in any way other than alphabetically, and in any event irrelevant to deletion per WP:NOTDUP. Re: your "unsourced cruft" statement, see WP:NOTCLEANUP (particularly WP:SUSCEPTIBLE), WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All previous deletion discussions have defined a clear boundary, that channel lists by company are suddenly tabu, but channel lists by country are encyclopedic. With this nom being first to cross the boundary, several previous deleters have affirmed the boundary's existence by switching to keep (e.g., postdlf, Masem). Accordingly this list is by country not by company, it is not a directory, and WP:NOTDIR does not apply. I have also affirmed that, even though the UK has something of a monopoly TV situation, a comparative geo list of channels by provider (in this case, free-to-air or subscription) is still on the keep side of the boundary as affirmed by the majority in prior discussions; comparing provision methods is also encyclopedic as shown by other articles. The article itself is clearly well-sourced in the "future" section and the common consent for lack of sourcing in other areas of the article is an in-universe problem that can be fixed over time. Encyclopedicity, notability, and the other pillars are all satisfied. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep actually, for since each station is notable, a list of notable things of a particular type in a particular places is a standard sort of list article. Some lists get challenged because they can never be complete or that not every member has a WP article; here's one that is complete, and every member does have an article, & so it gets challenged on the grounds that such a list is a directory. This is no more a directory article than List of counties in the United Kingdom. It's a navigation tool, and more useful than a category or navbox, because it can show the affiliation and the format and other characteristics all at the same time. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a long term Wikipedia user so I don't know all the protocol but I joined specifically to join the argument that we should keep these channel pages. It is a useful tool to anyone in media/communications. This is not a random list, neither is a corporate shill. Anyone who is subscribing to the services is not relying on Wikipedia as a TV guide. This is hard to find information for people outside of the country or viewing area or not subscribed to the services. I must stress again, Wikipedia is a living document and not a World Book Encyclopedia. This website functions as multiple reference sources (i.e. more than just direct definitions but also how too guide, secondary source guide, a confirmation source) outside the traditional purview. For examples the majority of the celebrity biographical information is generally up to the minute and more reliable than TMZ or Bossip, it seems like IMDB.com even cribs from Wiki. No, I am not an anti-Intellectual celeb-watcher, I am merely pointing out that people rely on Wikipedia for other things than accurate citations for Popes of the European Middle Ages. The channel pages serve a purpose and are not a "waste of space". Lanaii7 (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a 'useful page' (but perhaps simplify). This falls into the 'category of articles' (many of which are regularly updated) which Wikipedia is more useful than other sources. Where else can the 'list of former channels' be found? Jackiespeel (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2012 (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_digital_terrestrial_television_channels_(UK)&oldid=1079655691"