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 (closed by non-admin) per consensus and WP:SNOW RMHED 00:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-08 United States network television schedule[edit]

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. The actual factual accuracy of this article is debatable as long as the WGA strike lasts. Will ^(talk) 19:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around since the 1950's, I vote for it to stay. --Yankeesrj12 01:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Bogus. It has already beaten deletion once. This is my favorite article. Without this article I would be on wikipedia a heck of a lot less. EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP User:Ppoi307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.163.39 (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If this is deleted every other year should then be deleted, and as to the factual accuracy being debatable, the WGA strike only changes the season, the schedule will exist in some form or other as long as the networks continue to broadcast. Moheroy 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You dont know how long the WGA strike will last, who cares. It's the most up to date schedule possible, once again VERY STRONG KEEP!, and your also from England in which I don't know why you care about the schedule. --Yankeesrj12 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As long as the WGA strike is going on, we'll be updating it constantly if it changes (and we have). Just because a strike is gumming up the usual works of updating an article doesn't mean it should be deleted. We adapt, we'll source, and we'll follow the proper protocols to keep it accurate. Nate 04:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for all the same reasons that older similar articles were kept recently. This isn't a TV guide. Otto4711 15:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the title "...television schedule" and a table of times and dates of when shows air, it really fooled me. Will ^(talk) 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This page is one page of 60 years of television history that shows how networks competed with each other with their scheduling choices. The WGA strike has little to do with this article because it is alway updated to reflect the important changes. Keep it around, AGAIN. --Mtjaws 19:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same reasons everyone else has said. I mean, damn.--Josh 19:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Every bit of information is citable and verifiable, unlike many other articles. The previous schedules have been enormously helpful in researching American Culture, or writing period pieces. MMetro 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Why this particular article and not the SIXTY others? American TV seasons are inherent notable, and the current one has additional notability because of the strike. 23skidoo 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ditto. What's wrong with the page? (Wikirocks2 06:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Strong keep. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be in a dynamic, expansive encyclopedia. Britannica in book form could never do what wikipedia does, and this is a prime example of that. Oops, guess we better delete all the news and current event pages/articles as well, seeing how an 'encyclopedia' isn't a newspaper. :/ Oldsoul 06:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONLY because of the notability of the WGA strike's effects on television this season Doc Strange 14:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep because, like most of the other people have said, it's just one of 60 articles containing television history. LoveLaced 18:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you might want to look at WP:NOT#DIR, which pretty much (in actual fact, it does) says "Wikipedia is not an EPG". The reason the other sixty haven't been nominated is because AfD would be massively clogged if they were all nominated at once. Will ^(talk) 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's been around since May and now all of a sudden you want to delete it? --Yankeesrj12 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Age isn't an indicator of quality. Will ^(talk) 20:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is useful not just as a program guide, the schedule is not all that useful as a program guide because variation week to week is too great to rely on it. The schedule is of interest because it shows the state of programming during an individual season. For example, it shows how different types of shows and themes change from year to year, it also shows the demographic preferences of the networks, and by extension of the whole entertainment industry. personally I feel this is far more encyclopedic than having episode articles, and these are a well entrenched aspect of Wikipedia.Moheroy 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probaly the most useful article on wikipedia, it is really reliable, and has up to the minute updates. As soon as it's seen on a website it's added with a source. Once again VERY VERY VERY STRONG KEEP!--Yankeesrj12 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article is very encylopedic, if this was deleted then all the other seasons would have to be deleted. Rweba 00:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above this article is very encyclopedic and all the others would have to be deleted. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:46, 14 November 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.