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The result was Keep; nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) KaySL (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Re-nominating due to a lack of consensus from last year's debate. For some unfathomable reason, consensus could not be reached over this blatantly unnotable TV schedule. Nobody seemed willing to provide a rational explanation for how it fulfils any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but perhaps a definitive consensus will be reached this time. KaySL (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it the only reference doesn't indicate notability. And i recomend the deletion of Template:Ausdaytimeschedule and Template:Austelevisionschedules to, as tv schedules aren't notable. Armbrust (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep national network schedules are notable-- if only as a navigational guide for the various articles on the shows. The distinction that should be made is national/local, as in so many areas of notability. I further think there is probably press coverage on the general nature of the schedule--there certainly is on the placement of individual shows within it. Alas, we have no inclusion criteria. We merely have criteria for what will not be included. This falls under none of them--it doesn't fall under not directory, because it includes only the general outline of the schedule--a directory would give the details of the week-to-week changes. I think that we certainly ought to word it in a positive way as inclusion criteria, but this would bring all our disagreements to the surface & it is highly unlikely that we would actually find any statement that would get consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should quote a very good commentary from the first deletion discussion: 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).

Additionally, the article does fall under WP:NOTDIR, specifically section 4, which states: 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 may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Electronic program guides are clearly mentioned, as in schedule information for a television channel or set of channels. KaySL (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a summary of this sort is not a program guide--a program guide lists a complete set of the individual program in particular days, and is thus properly excluded as indiscriminate, but this is the rough outline of the season. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per United States Primetime Television Schedules. Those have survived AfD numerous times, and the reasoning should extend to Australian networks as well. MMetro (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, no, no they shouldn't. As I stated above, Wikipedia guidelines are very clear on the matter. The US schedules also violate the rule I quoted above, and should probably be deleted also. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. KaySL (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it would be fairer to say that you think the Wikipedia guidelines are clear on the subject and support this point of view. If they were as clear as you say, people would not disagree with you--rather, like all guidelines, they need interpretation, and right here at AfD is where we interpret them. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is by definition an electronic programme guide. As to what you say about everyone agreeing with me if I were right, that argument really doesn't stand up; there would never be any disagreement on any AfDs if it did. KaySL (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is by definition an electronic programming guide": According to this, an EPG is "an application used with Digital Video Recorders, set-top Cable and Satellite boxes, and newer TVs to list current and scheduled programs that are or will be available on each channel. In addition, a short summary or commentary for each program is listed." According to that page, I should be able to access the Wikipedia article "using a remote control". I think it's great that I can use a menu to select programs that I want to "set parental controls, order pay-per-view programming, search for programs based on theme or category, and set recordings for the future" right on Wikipedia! Oh, wait; I can't. You don't know what you're talking about. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's being a little selective in your interpretation? The sense in which it was referred to in that WP:NOTDIR snippet was clearly to mean an electronically-stored copy of a traditional paper-based TV programme guide. Otherwise, apparently we're not allowed to include server-side TV recording software on Wikipedia, which is more than impossible to begin with. KaySL (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "my" interpretation. That's the definition. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant interpreting what was meant in the WP:NOTDIR section. If that section was referring to EPGs as in the devices rather than the paper-based schedules, then yes it would be correct, but given the definition, it can't possibly have been referring to the devices. KaySL (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Australian television schedules are discussed in scholarly works. Only those who don't bother to read scholarly works discussing television schedules could convince themselves that the subject isn't notable or worthwhile in an encyclopedia. Also note that a television schedule is emphatically not an electronic programming guide: "By navigating through an EPG on a receiving device, users can see more information about the current program and about future programs." Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The scholarly article you linked to mentions Australian TV schedules only in passing, and the main focus is far more on the actual content of shows. I answered the EPG point above. On a side note, it's a little surprising, the barely-veiled hostility that I'm receiving here. Please don't insinuate that I don't bother to read scholarly articles, or that I didn't bother to do a bit of research before nominating this article for deletion. KaySL (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not done your research. I'm not only insinuating that you don't read scholarly material on television, I'm stating it. You don't; you clearly don't, or you would not confuse a national network schedule with an EPG. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please have the good grace to call me a liar directly. I did indeed do my research, and I am not confusing a network schedule with an EPG, as I have pointed out more than once above. Thank you. KaySL (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't do the research, KaySL: you can't tell the difference, and you clearly are confusing an EPG with a national network schedule. I understand that it's hard to back down after you've nominated an article for deletion, but your words are recorded above: "The article is by definition an electronic programming guide". That's what you wrote. You are conflating two different things here; you can't tell the difference. But what I'm telling you is that national network schedules are very often the subject of scholarly work. EPGs are where you go to check local listings. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, if someone presents a good argument, I'll gladly retract my nomination. What you're saying is that I'm confusing EPGs and television schedules, correct? Well as I've said three times now, I'm not confusing anything. My original definition of 'electronic programming guide' was an electronically-stored network schedule, what we in the UK call a programme guide. What I'm saying as my main point is that the WP:NOTDIR section is referring to TV schedules in a similar manner, not to EPGs as in the devices. How on earth would we store a tangible, physical piece of electronic hardware or its software on a wiki anyway? KaySL (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing them, and I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, because you're not taking it well. But the truth is, you haven't done the research, and it's hard for you to back down. An EPG is where TV viewers go to check local listings. It's so they can see what is on TV. EPGs have features that tell viewers what's on in their local area; a national program grid would be senseless to consult to see what's on because most time zones will be off, programs will be pre-empted due to local programming, etc. There's an on-Wiki fear that people would consult Wikipedia to see what is on TV (thus making Wikipedia somehow less of an encyclopedia in some people's eyes), but the fear is in great part unfounded because only the most ill-informed viewer would consult Wikipedia's national network program grids to see what's on locally. EPGs also offer features like up-to-the-minute schedule changes, let viewers know if a series is new or a repeat episode, offer a summary of that episode, etc... all of these features are possible on Wikipedia, but we don't do that. We're WP:NOT a TV Guide. In contrast, national network program grids inform someone what was on TV nationally during a certain year. It's not a guarantee that that's what aired in every city at every station; it just shows what the networks aired. The national grids affect the television industry each year; EPGs don't do that. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated misunderstandings of my points regarding the whole EPG vs. TV guide aside, even a national schedule doesn't really warrant an article, in my eyes, so long as notability continues to remain unproven within the article itself. As I said before, the "scholarly article" you linked to previously doesn't seem to mention the schedule(s) in anything other than passing, though if primary and secondary sources are forthcoming, I'll simply withdraw my deletion nomination. KaySL (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search pulls up articles like "Nine gears up for Aussie summer". The article is only accessible to paid subscribers, but the summary is "A fact-ent series set in the waiting rooms of Australia's hospitals and another following the recovery of road crash victims are among the new series headlining Nine Network's 2009 schedule." Firsfron of Ronchester 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the sources have to be specifically discussing the national schedule, rather than specific channels'? KaySL (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine is a national network. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that all Australian TV networks must be covered in the same article? I don't see why; we don't need four or five different articles on Aussie TV schedules each year. One is sufficient. here's another article describing Nine's 2009 schedule and a note on rival networks. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I'm not saying that all of them must be covered, just that in my opinion, why cover only one if the others are just as notable? The article you just linked to seems very general to serve as a reference for the article, given it only discusses a few shows and movies, most of which don't fall under the scope of the national schedule. Since the article doesn't deal with any specific network, I'd think relevant references pertaining to at least two networks would be ideal. KaySL (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I was busy at work. The Australian Film Institute has nice coverage of ABC, Seven, Nine, and Ten's 2009 television schedules here and here. These articles cover things like schedule dates and times, what's airing on what network, trends in 2009 programming ("Last year’s US writers’ strike shook up our networks to get more local content produced"), break-up of series by genre, and early viewership estimates. The full cite is: Kelly, Laura (2009). "Will 2009 be the Year of the Couch Potato?". Australian Film Institute. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since there's no logical place in the article to cite these, I've just added them as external links. I'm still unsure as to the article's true notability, but I'm satisfied for now and will withdraw my nomination. KaySL (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (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.