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The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn.--Isotope23 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)[edit]

1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At first sight, this may well fall into the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" subcategory of WP:NOT things. Article is ((unreferenced)), but I'm sure that paper sources to reference it will exist in reference libraries, so WP:V is not a major issue here. There are 99 articles in the Category:Television schedules; this one was selected at random. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep this and the 99 others; this is legitimate and interesting information. Is the nominator planning to AFD all 99 schedules? 23skidoo 14:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not today anyway, never if this is kept, and not anytime soon if it is deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable historical information. Useful for comparison purposes, both between seasons and between programs. Graphical presentation moves this from being just raw data to being encyclopedic. Powers ^T 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 1) It is not in dispute that articles may properly consist of lists or tables of information rather than solely prose (e.g., List of cities in the United States. 2) It is not in dispute that the same information may properly be organized in different ways in separate lists (e.g., List of United States cities by population). 3) It is not in dispute that television series are encyclopedic. 4) I believe organizing television series by the period of time in which they were broadcast is reasonable and useful, and the nominator has not presented an argument on this point to the contrary. Postdlf 15:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. DCEdwards1966 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep See previous discussion. No new arguments presented, no reason to change the results, not less than a month and a half later. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nomination withdrawn per Mister Manticore. If I had seen this (had remembered it rather, because I probably did see it), I wouldn't have wasted anyone's time with this. Apologies all round, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, of course! Trollderella 18:02, 27 November 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.