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 no consensus. The debate has now moved to a more appropriate place, RFC. In order to keep the debate centralized, I am closing this AfD as No consensus and kindly ask everyone interested to participate at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30#Per station television schedules. Thank you. Tone 12:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

2009 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 all. Not particiularly encyclopedic either. ^TheWeak_Willed 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this directory info. JJL (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its not a directory, its a just a novel navigation device. We have the same for US television and radio. See 2009–2010 United States network television schedule. A directory is a list of red links or of external links. A list of blue links is a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ugh! I don't see how that isn't a directory listing--the shows are already in WP and searchable, so this just adds the ability to know what was on at 9PM on a Tuesday on NBC? JJL (talk) 03:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ^TheWeak_Willed 09:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • WP:WAX should be avoided. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Pure deletionist copyright paranoia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete-do I really need to comment? Once again, Wikipedia is not to be confused with tv guide.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you still should. Grazi. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide; what makes this schedule historically significant? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:47, 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) 04:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:WAX. The deletion debate you mentioned was in 2007 - it is hardly relevant. Ironholds (talk) 04:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the contrary, it is highly relevant. Edison (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not voting either way on this as I don't really care (although I don't see the need for it, as it is not really encyclopedic), but I would like to say that while I understand that the What About X?/Otherstuff exists arguments are invalid in an AFD, surely as a policy it is responsible for a lot of heartache amongst contributors. As human beings by nature we look to precedent to see what is acceptable, so that when some articles are deleted and others are not (when they essentially are the same) it is bound to lead to feelings of frustration amongst some contributors (and also possibly the notion of selective/biased deletion). So I guess what I am really saying is that while Otherstuff exists is an invalid argument, it might be nice to actually have some consistency. 115.129.5.223 (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A television schedule. Joe Chill (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Programming schedules are outside the realm of encyclopedias unless there is something descriptive to say about them (the current article is just the schedule, nothing about the schedule). CyberCobra correctly points to the relevant WP:NOT policy on them which explicitly mentions them. Information like this dates very quickly, we avoid having articles on bus schedules for the same reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DeleteAre we really questioning this its really easy Delete.--Dcheagle (talk) 11:22, 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) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Indiscriminate info, unsuitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Who would look up Australian television schedules from the 1950s to the 2000s in an encylopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is notable and encyclopedic material here in the United States, and barring any systemic bias its just as notable and encyclopedic Down Under. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the fact of Broadcast programming as strategy is notable, but I'm less convinced that directory listings of the annual outcomes of that process are notable. JJL (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:WAX; And fwiw, I personally don't find the US ones any more notable. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I don't agree with Ironholds's reasoning on past TV schedules, I think the guy is right about a current schedule being too much like TV guide. Besides, I never watch Australian network television. Mandsford (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unsourced. I'll bet that it is copied verbatim from a copyrighted source. Abductive (reasoning) 23:41, 13 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) 00:32, 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) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is argument from anecdote--which often cuts both ways, for what this amounts to is the proper collection of material for an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you guys say that when no one has said how this particular schedule is historically significant. And for anyone who wants this deleted because it is a current schedule, do you want the delete to be undone in 2010 when it is "historically significant". Joe Chill (talk) 03:33, 22 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) 02:37, 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." This is not "TV Guide," which says what the program's episode will be on a particular day. In a given country, the network TV schedules have typically been discussed in more depth in books, magazines, and newspaper media columns, than mere listings of the days programming. The schedule is a strategic choice of what program leads into a given program, and what the competition is in a time slot. Edison (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scheduling choices generally perhaps, but this schedule specifically? What makes this one "historically significant" as required by WP:NOT? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:25, 15 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.
• Delete, a clear case of WP:NOT, as far as I can see, and the above Keep comments don't convince me otherwise. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:NOTDIR. As some delete voters have done, I also copy my comments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules (same nominator, same topic, same batch): The deletion rationale: "a classic case of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY" defies imagination. It is not only grossly misleading but downright counterfactual as this type of information is specifically mentioned and even wiki-linked in WP:NOTDIRECTORY as acceptable. While I would like to assume good faith my olfactory organ informs me that the nomination does not pass the smell test. The present outcome is pretty obvious: - divisive stuff that turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no ulterior or pointy motives in nominating this for deletion. Either provide "Available evidence and logical inference" or withdraw your unwarranted and baseless personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The relevant section of WP:NOTDIR specifically requires that such schedules be "historically significant"; no evidence has been presented that this one is. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not "require it", it presumes it. It says that U.S. network programming schedules are historically significant. I would extend that to other countries, since this is not "U.S.pedia" Edison (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the validity of that special exemption in the policy is questionable. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to change a policy, please go to the policy page to do so. Edison (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless sources are provided as to why this is Historically significant, Gnangarra 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and, to closing admin, my !vote to the other Australian TV Guide articles is Delete as well. I could go through a list of WP:NOT examples, but, this one's pretty much common sense...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 12:57, 20 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 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Article should not list tv schedules and I do not see how this has any significance. Richard (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I relisted this debate because there are several similar cases open at the moment and my opinion was that there should be a unified approach to all of them. However, if I focus just on this one, it would be a delete, NOTDIR as the main reason (as it was discussed above). --Tone 18:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "2009 Australian network television schedule". Not true. Maybe that is what is true for parts of the year in some parts of Australia. It is not the schedule for what is curently happening in my part of Australia. My part of Australia is a lot bigger than Melbourne and Sydney. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what I gather you are saying, then, is that the article should be expanded? Go to it. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This should be an obvious delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, a directory, or a TV guide. It's an obvious example of what Wikipedia is not. I personally cannot comprehend how this is possibly historically significant. Timmeh (review me) 21:22, 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) 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that pretty much comes to no-consensus at least as regards network or national guides, such as this one . DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the policy has not been overturned. The alleged lack of consensus means the policy is upheld. Abductive (reasoning) 22:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And many of the ten in-betweeners are against current program guides. Abductive (reasoning) 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:AFD, "Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page." The admin who closes it is presumed able to evaluate the quality of the arguments, and whether they are based on policies or guidelines without your assistance in tallying. And it is not a vote. Edison (talk) 02:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Power.corrupts, above at 22:01, 18 Aug -- Noroton (talk) 22:17, 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.