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 (per consensus and precedent) — Caknuck 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1982-83 United States network television schedule[edit]

1982-83 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not TV Guide. This is part of a vast directory of old TV schedules, and Wikipedia is not a repository for random directories of things.

To head off "What about [one of the many other directories in this collection]?" at the pass, this is the begining of removing all of these inappropriate directories. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What about the other 61 related pages, 1946-47 through 2007-08? I'd say delete, but it'd be pointless to delete this one without nuking the others as well. —Travis^talk 01:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this were deleted for problems that are systemic, I'd nominate the others too, sure. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per past discussion on this subject. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) probably a couple of others. This is a representation of the nationwide broadcast schedules, in a historical format. It's really not a tv guide. A tv guide tells you what's on week to week. This merely recounts the programming schedule, something which is the subject of numerous news reports like [1] or [2] or even [3].

This is the best way to represent the information, and you can think it a TV guide if you want. But it's really no different than listing the dates a battle occurs in a war. This is not random, it's very specific and has reasonably limited criteria, namely network television. FrozenPurpleCube 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battles are individually notable and are individual historical events, whereas televisions schedules change on a rough cycle and are routine events.

This is raw source material, and there's little to no possibility for this to be anything but a grid of routine data. There are other projects more suited to this,and it long hasn't been part of Wikipedia's goals. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television shows are individually notable as well(witness the many with articles), and I'd certainly say that the network, as well as the time of their airing is information that is valid to include on the article pages. Many episodes of television shows which also have articles (or lists of them) also include the original air date. (This information is also frequently included on things like the DVDs) Thus your argument there is unpersuasive. This is not raw source material, that would be the actual shows themselves. This is a representation of the published schedules and is no different than say, including election results. If you wish to have something besides the data, then you can more closely examine this page which provides examples of several of the things that could be included. It would also be possible to add further analysis such as is found in the articles I linked to. I'm sorry, but I find your objections to be unpersuasive. If you wish to suggest another project, go ahead, but I consider this completely encyclopedic. FrozenPurpleCube 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And we can easily mention in the articles of the shows when they aired and where. A directory of television schedules is raw source material duplicating content better placed elsewhere, and can easily be disposed of. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. If I am interested in television shows that screened in 1982-83, then this article is an extremely good place to start. Just because an index covers stuff you're not interested in does not mean it should be deleted. Rebecca 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is an organization of information that is also valid to place elsewhere. In a sense, it's like [List of United States Presidents by date of birth] which duplicates the information found on individual pages because the organizational value is higher than the duplication cost. Which is close to nil for Wikipedia. FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Delete the entire directory.James Luftan 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly useful index to the television shows of a particular era. We need more, not less of these - this is another example of some Wikipedians' strange tendency to try to destroy the indexes. Rebecca 02:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't we have a separate project for this kind of stuff? Wikisource, perhaps? This isn't really an encyclopedia entry. Moreover I find it improbable that the broadcast schedules of an entire nation were as predictable as shown over the entirety of a year. Which brings us to verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 02:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is completely inappropriate for Wikisource, and moving it off Wikipedia would defeat the purpose of putting it here - which is to act as an index to all the television series screened in that particular year. Rebecca 02:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may find it improbable to believe that they are that predictable, but the fact is, that's how it's done. Yes, there are exceptions for things like the State of the Union or unexpected important events, or even sports rain-outs, but by and large, the schedules are not changed without good reason. (In fact, noting the changes during the year would be quite valid in expanding the coverage of these pages) This is because of the advertisers who want predictable audiences for their dollars. See studies like [4] or [5] FrozenPurpleCube 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per all keep uses above. Past listings of TV shows are no less encyclopedic than, say, a list of number-one country music songs from any given year. Many TV shows are notable, and this is a perectly acceptable method of detailing them (especially the airdates of specific notable episodes). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a violation of WP is not an "electronic program guide". Why not expand this list to every time slot and every channel? I dont think WP should be the place for old program guides to go. I could copy yesterday's program guide from titantv.com and make a "Television schedule for July 25, 2006". This should be archived somewhere else, just not here Corpx 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This argument makes no sense. This article, as with the others in this series, is about a year. It makes for a good index, and no one is arguing that we should create pages for every day. This argument is like arguing to delete a city article because we could have articles about streets. Rebecca 03:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Because every timeslot and channel would be excessive detail, as would individual days. To use an example, we list the actions of 96th United States Congress in only a limited fashion. It would be possible to list every single hearing and act of legislation, but such would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. This doesn't mean zero coverage, it just means limiting the coverage to what is acceptable. In this case, it's the official schedules of the network television broadcasts. If you want to argue for including something else, feel free, but this AFD discussion isn't the proper place. FrozenPurpleCube

• Keep Excellent navigational device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FrozenPurpleCube and Ten Pound Hammer. Maxamegalon2000 05:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How is this not a tv guide? Punkmorten 10:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I hadn't seen this series of articles before. They are excellent navigational tools. Deletion would be a step backwards for the encyclopedia. AndyJones 13:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't a TV guide, in the sense that Wikipedia shouldn't be a TV guide, unless you're a time traveller. Television has a huge impact on our culture, especially network primetime, and these pages enhance our coverage of that by providing a chronological view of the history of TV shows. Pinball22 15:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. You want to delete this article for no reason or I have not given "The A-Team" its timeslot yet? United States network television schedules cannot be deleted from Wikipedia. As soon as thw #7 show in the 1982-83 season The-A-Team, is put on this schedule, the discussion will be over and the deletion message on that schedule will be removed. The A-Team was a midseadon replacement that season. Jim856796 21:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is not an "electronic program guide" unless someone plans to travel through time back to the year covered and watch TV. It documents a well known part of culture and society. Each TV program listed has multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage, whether presented in the article at present or not. So does the prime time lineup of each of the networks, with discussions of the wisdom or foolishness of putting a particular program up against a particular other program. The subject of the article satisfies WP:N and WP:A. The arguments of TenPound Hammer and Mr Manticore are effective ones. Edison 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know I wasn't planning to travel back in time to do just that, hmmmmmm? What happened to assuming good faith? ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My earlier comment was influenced by the fact that I almost never watch network TV. Other editors have made some rather compelling arguments here. —Travis^talk 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is little more than an out of date and now-useless TV Guide listing. Burntsauce 17:36, 31 July 2007 (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.