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 delete. The deletion votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this directory info. JJL (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Pure deletionist copyright paranoia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  firstly, Norton hasn't posted here, secondly, where is copyright mentioned anywhere? We have this thing called WP:AGF, y'see, don't know if you've read it, and it has some very specific views on attributing motives to users. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He voted on the 2009 schedule above. To me and I could be wrong, but this falls under another users vendetta to get rid of all schedules from television network pages. I think they are highly useful and encyclopedic, others say not. To me, that is copyright paranoia and I believe this falls under that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you're certainly wrong. I've never mentioned copyright anywhere. My concerns are not copyright-related. The concerns, helpfully listed above, are about something completely different. I tagged all of these because I was patrolling Special:Newpages and they were all under the same user's contributions. I have no "vendetta" whatsoever, and I don't want one - what I would like is an apology for assuming things based on no evidence whatsoever, claiming a bad motive on my part and generally failing to assume good faith. Ironholds (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. An interesting historical artefact, consistent with existing articles at United States primetime network television schedules which survived deletion discussion. WWGB (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:WAX. The deletion debate you mentioned was in 2007 - it is hardly relevant. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide; what makes this schedule historically significant? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Encyclopedias are not for television schedules. Joe Chill (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice looking article, transwiki to at least somewhere. Dr. Eme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• DELETE Ironclad case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indiscriminate info, unsuitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NOTDIR, section 4, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." There appears to be an exception to the general admonition against directories. Not everyone likes this type of article, but I see no policy prohibiting it. Mandsford (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't explained how every TV schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't write what goes into WP:NOT. All I can do is quote from it. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If television schedules are so important why not create television schedule instead of making a directory of old TV Guides? Even an old TV Guide has no historical significance. What you guys are saying is that old TV Guides from 2008 and below are historically significant without explaining how it is. Whenever anyone posts links, it always shows notability for television and not the individual old TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Husband: I'm going to throw away last years TV Guide.
• Wife: Don't! Copy it onto Wikipedia!
• Husband: Why?
• Wife: The TV Guide is historically significant now that it's a year after.
• Husband: Okay. I'll type this up on Wikipedia.
• Wife: Get my mom's old TV Guides from the attic and type those up also! Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin: Please consider together the related open AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). JJL (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Either this is a copy (not an encyclopedic treatment, but just a copy) of a primary source (like the weather report), or it is unsourced. Could it survive on Wikisource? Probably not, since TV Guide and the like have that pesky © symbol. Abductive (reasoning) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keeping such articles about the schedule (as opposed to daily programming) is consistent with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory which says "..historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." The networks schedule should not be trivialized and misrepresented as mere "TV Guide," which says what the program's episode will be on a particular day. Also there is no copyright problem, since information (which show on which channel at which time) is not copyrightable. This is not the detailed individual program information found in TV Guide, which is copyrighted. In a given country, the network TV schedules have typically been discussed in more depth in magazines and newspaper media columns, than mere listings of the days programming. The scheduling choices, and their effects on the ratings of programs, are part of the subject matter of college courses in broadcasting and media. The schedule is a strategic choice of what program leads into a given program, and what the competition is in a time slot. Besides satisfying notability a country's network programming schedule is a useful organizational tool, providing information not clearly seen in individual articles about the programs. Edison (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see any evidence this schedule is "historically significant", as WP:NOT requires. I don't agree about the US schedules for that matter, but at least the US is a media industry hub. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its significant as the history of the real world presentation of a major artform. I note the repeated use of Harry and Louise arguments, which do not help rational discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources are provided as to why this is Historically significant, Gnangarra 11:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Wikipedia. Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year. Dream Focus 16:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#The_consensus_so_far shows that 21 editors feel these guides are unencyclopedic, ten think some are acceptable, and five think all such guides are appropriate for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (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.