This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 October 29.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of DirecTV channels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, channel listing directors for cable provides are not appropriate content for WP.

I am also nominating the following:

As to keep this multiple AFD reasonable (as most of the articles in Category:Lists of television channels by company fail this), I am going to do these region-by-region-ish, just in case any specific listing has a reason to be kept. MASEM (t) 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Article is well sourced and thorough, no justification provided for deletion. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the linked AFD discussion that just closed. These channel listings summarily fail WP:NOTDIR (they are akin to electronic program guides); they change too often, and there's no reason we can't link to official versions from the providers themselves. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It changes too often" is not a rational for deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an electronic program guide, there's no names of shows or when they're on. It's better than DirecTV's website too. On DirecTV's website, several channels missing or mislabeled. This list is complete and accurate. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our responsibly to make up for mistakes and omissions on a company's website - it also begs the question of how this can be accurate if the most direct source is not. And while it's not exactly an electronic program guide, it's akin to one, and the type of directory NOTDIR warns against, as evidenced by the previous AFD for the AT&T Uverse channels. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our responsibility is to provide thorough, accurate, complete details about the topic. That's exactly what this article does. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are supposed to be providing a summary of the topic, being a tertiary source. An article on DirecTV, yes. A listing of channels it offers? No. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally contribute a lot of effort to keep List of DirecTV local channels with HD accurate. Frankly, it's the best listing/grouping on wikipedia of stations and the cities they serve, since we received several takedown notices in the past concerning similar pages. It could be repurposed to do this. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, I check DirecTV news literally on a daily basis, and have made thousands of edits to List of DirecTV channels (United States) to make sure it's accurate and updated as often as needed. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:EFFORT. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant policy (again). That article has never been outdated and never will be thus your arguments are illegitimate. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing that because of the amount of work you have done and continue to do that the article shouldn't be deleted. Please refer to WP:EFFORT. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My work proves the article has never been outdated, thus refuting your claim that it is, so your claim is completely false and should be disregarded. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, saying that you've put a lot of effort into maintaining the article is not a reason to keep the article, if the article fails on other grounds. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that voting snowball on keep/delete has absolutely no meaning, especially if it's the first vote on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or electronic channel guide, which these are equivalent to, as shown by their stating that they give current channel assignments. They lack independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N, and just provide (likely outdated) copies of what would be better obtained from the cable companies' own websites or the online channel guides. My cable provider moves channels around and adds or removes channels frequently, so I question the usefulness of these soon-to-be-stale copies of the provider's channel lineup. Edison (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia is not paper. If an article is outdated, it can be updated in a matter of seconds. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not paper" is not a blanket license to fill Wikipedia with unencyclopedic heaps of miscellaneous and trivial raw data such as channel listings, which are always available from the cable provider in accurate and up to date form. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the content in the articles does not appear to be supported by the references listed. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Wikipedia should not be used for channel guides, especially as they can become outdated within a matter of minutes, and not be updated for days. See the other discussion for more information. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Wikipedia is not paper do you guys not understand??????TomCat4680 (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER explicitly says we don't include everything under the sun, and make decisions on what content to include. Seems very appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it states nothing on Wikipedia is permanent and can be edited by anyone at any time, i.e. any outdated material can be updated instantly. Therefore all arguments about "outdated articles" is irrational and not grounds for deletion. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the content has to first be appropriate for WP, before we can talk about being updated regularly. This fails NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which part? It's not an Electronic program guide because there's no names of shows or what time they're on. It's a list of available channels, and nothing in NOTDIR says anything about disallowing these types of lists. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTDIR is not fully inclusive of what is considered a directory - this came up at the previous AFD noted above, and as it closed for delete , it was based on the fact that these are not directories WP should have. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you're saying you're not sure how it fails it? Sounds like you haven't even read the guidelines you keep quoting. Plus the results of an unrelated article's AFD have nothing to do with the merits of this article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate if one of the editors above would remain civil, and refer to WP:NOTPAPER. We are not saying outdatedness is grounds for deletion. We are saying the fact that WP:NOTDIR is. So please stop refering to part of NOTPAPER taken out of context, and ignoring out facts about NOTDIR. When you are ready to refute our basis of NOTDIR, then feel free to continue. Otherwise, may I politely request of all that you continue this discussion on a new strand, and not on my delete vote? gwickwire | Leave a message 05:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, back up your claim with specific details. Exactly what part of NOTDIR does it fail? TomCat4680 (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It fails the whole concept of NOTDIR. The concept of NOTDIR is that Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a directory. Ergo, it failes "article must not be a directory". Once again, continue this discussion on a new comment, not under my vote please. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the comments by @Masem, a major proponent of the AT&T U-verse AfD, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Meaning of Wikipedia:NOTDIR. S/he states, "We don't disallow any directory..., but do avoid directories that don't fit the educational or academic goal of WP. ... More often than not, it is directories that are controlled ... by a single commercial entity that we generally disallow,... . But we are purposely vague as to allow determine by AFD to access when an article is a directory or not." So a blanket ban on "directories" (whatever that term specifically includes) isn't really the case. --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, per WP:NOTDIR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels. -- Wikipedical (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesdrakew (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the spirit as well as the letter of WP:NOTDIR. Directories such as this are very difficult to maintain, as the information can change very fast. DirecTV is a notable subject worthy of encyclopedic analysis. How they order their channels is not. Them From Space 21:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, per NOTDIR and arguments in prior related AFD. It would be a different matter if we were dealing with lists of network affiliates, stations owned by a particular company, etc. These provider lists are instead mundane (most notable cable channels will be carried by most providers and most providers will carry most such channels) and transitory, particularly in the numbering. This makes it raw data, something to be summarized, not dumped here. In those rare instances in which the carriage or noncarriage of a particular channel is actually a topic of discussion in reliable sources (wasn't there a Viacom-DirectTV dispute over fees?), that alone may be encyclopedic and should be noted in the companies' histories. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I have been using this list for years and years. It's the only truly comprehensive DTV listings out there. About every 6 months i print off an updated copy and i go through my receivers adding and removing channels. Way back when, i even attempted to do some editing the channel guide myself. I understand that some are saying that WP is an inappropriate place for electronic channel guides, but i thought WP was supposed to be for all knowledge for anything that members/people are willing to contribute to. If people are willing to keep working on these lists, why delete them? Especially when there are people out there like me that utilize this information? I don't understand the harm in keeping the content. I'm in favor of a KEEP. I apologize to anyone who may be upset if i did something wrong here. I'm learning and needed help being able to voice my opinion the correct way. Thanks for allowing my opinion. Terster . Terster (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terster (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia seeks encyclopedic articles first and foremost, not "useful" ones. From WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The validity of an argument does not depend on the bureaucratic designation given to the page where it appears. And that's policy not a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone is entitled to an opinion Terster. I suggest moving the material to Wikia where there is no restriction on original research and people can make whatever directories they like.--Charles (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I'm definitely an inclusionist, this series of articles has been a thorn in my side for years. It has no logical means of organization, breaking everything into colors and packages that I haven't been able to ever make sense of and which the average Joe/Jane has to do multiple scrolls up to the legend to understand fully, contains channels and alternate feeds rarely watched by anyone and of no use to anyone outside of sat-enthusiasts, and most of all, all of the channels are already listed in the network articles themselves with their channel locations on these providers or have a 'the network is available on (providers X,Y,Z)' note in the article, making this all duplicative. Besides that, judging from my past experience of having to clean up after, it is also one of the easiest and most annoying of article series to vandalize by IPs and troublemaking users, and fixing the complicated template structure takes multiple saves to work all out. Most of all, notwithstanding the zeal of others to keep everything up to date, they're a small minority of editors and if not for them, this would age badly otherwise because there is a steep learning curve to maintain this long list of templates where you're only going to see editors with long experience (and serial vandalizers) editing it. Definitely WP:NOTDIR, and all channel lists are better listed by the providers themselves on their websites, and Wikias=options to maintain this information in a more collaborative and less volatile venue where the vandals can't get in. Note I did rationale Speedy Keep on nom #1, but that was six years ago and many building issues before where it was just a simple basic list easy to navigate. Nate • (chatter) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified by the hostility these articles generate. One would have the impression from reading the comments of those wanting to delete them that they represent an existential threat. Carthago delenda est? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least List of channels on Zattoo as well-referenced and notable. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep what's the alternative? Quoting Canadian Bobby: "(...) all of the channels are already listed in the network articles themselves with their channel locations on these providers or have a 'the network is available on (providers X,Y,Z)' (...)," that would mean that one need to check channel by channel for the channel numbers on a provider's line-up. Not very logical and definitely not practical. Every article could be vandalized, so that's no strong argument against it. I update the Dutch UPC channel lists (List of channels on UPC Netherlands (Horizon) and List of channels on UPC Netherlands (Mediabox)) regularly and I don't see a valid reason to delete it. I'm also strong against the merging of the list with the article of the provider. That's really messy! - C0re1980 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover it's more than just a list of channels. It also keeps track of channel changes, channel launches, defunct channels and so on. It isn't a commercial list, but just an objective article about the available channels with its corresponding subscription/channel info and the history of available channels. - C0re1980 (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These pages (and others like them) for other countries are the best and sometimes even only source of information on the specific channels on a platform. I do not believe it comes under WP:NOTDIR, because that seems to cover only directories for business purposes such as business directories, promotions or catalogues, etc.. They are well-organised under channel genre (I'm talking specifically now about the UK-based ones which have also been nominated under this page). They are well-sourced in every way - I've seen people want to add sections to these articles which have been removed because (despite how correct they are) there are no sources, so they're obviously also well-policed and looked after. These pages have little to no original research as some people seem to be implying; believe it or not, there are extensive media outlets for the reporting of upcoming launches/closures on the TV side of things; many of the sites that are (or could be if the appropriate tag was added) sourced are ones used by the industry itself. As there are few television platforms of interest in the UK these articles are also notable in that they provide quite an easy way to compare them in addition to everything else that they're useful for. These constitute valuable and useful glorified lists essentially, so in conclusion, definite and strong keep from me. Muzer (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because no other source has this information all in one place means we have make up for that. It is a director, akin to a product catalog. I will agree that the grounds to delete is not based on (apparent) OR. What would not be a problem would be a non-table list of the notable channels a station carries on the article about the station, along with any significant channel omissions or changes that have been noted by sources, but we don't need to give all info like channel number, all the music/ppv/etc. stations, the format, etc. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't made up but the list is acquired by checking it at home on the set-top box (or other television reception device) and sourced by press releases, news etc. In table form it's well-organized. The channel number, format etc. makes the information complete and you can see all you want to know in just one glance. By doing this without tables it would be very messy. - C0re1980 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tables aren't the problem. The problem is the article fails WP:NOTDIR. Just because these articles are sourced doesn't mean they are in line with Wikipedia policy (they aren't). -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - They are. They aren't just directories. I don't agree sorry. - C0re1980 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Super strong Keep at least the articles of Canadian cable and satellite providers lists and Dish Network lists. Steam5 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have noticed that the channel lists for British satellite and cable platforms have been added to the list of articles proposed for deletion. I find them to be useful lists which are diligently kept up to date by one editor. These lists are not available anywhere else on the internet and they provide a very useful resource and it would be very disappointing if they were to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the reasons, "It's useful" is not a reason to keep something that fails our content guidelines, nor are we responsible to provide a resource that doesn't exist elsewhere.
  - WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The validity of an argument does not depend on the bureaucratic designation given to the page where it appears. And that's policy not a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As to the UK lists, I (who started this) purposely did not add them, as to keep the size down to prevent a single massive AFD. I don't know what the situation is with that.... --MASEM (t) 16:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I acknowledge the delete rationales raised here, I am persuaded by Core1980's argument that these are, ultimately, beneficial lists organizing existing information in an encyclopedic way. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above by others and myself, please see WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The validity of an argument does not depend on the bureaucratic designation given to the page where it appears. And that's policy not a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think this qualifies for a directory. Like mentioned before, it's more than just a channel number list. At least the European counterparts are. - C0re1980 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - To C0re1980, the concept that I follow is the fact that it is, at its core (no pun intended), a channel list. Period. Lists are okay on Wikipedia if they serve a purpose other than ease of use for TV subscribers. From Wiktionary: "1.A list of names, addresses etc., of specific classes of people or organizations, often in alphabetical order or in some classification." (wikt:directory). This seems to classify these articles as directories. First of all, these could cause Wikipedia trouble with the companies if they decide to sue for some reason. Second of all, people can just look on their TV screen, the paper that came with their service (and all do have a paper), or their providers website instead of Wikipedia. I've been seeing a lot of the whole "I use it" "Super keep (at least the ones of a specific area)" "It's not word for word a WP:NOTDIR" etc. My response is that Wikipedia is about consensus, not about following a policy word for word (especially like this, when the policy does not establish word for word what a directory is and isn't, just gives examples." I encourage all of the respondents here to take a close look at WP:NOTDIR and the previous AfD linked at the top of this page before continuing, as I do not want this to escalate more than it currently has. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Under that definition of what a directory is from Wiktionary, any list on Wikipedia could be classified as a directory. If that were the case Wikipedia would not allow list. Powergate92Talk 04:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Firstly Wiktionary is not a reliable source, just as Wikipedia articles cannot cite Wikipedia articles. But either way, these lists are electronic program guides, forbidden by WP:NOTDIR. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See my post below where I already explained to you how this is in no way a "electronic program guide." Powergate92Talk 06:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As per WP:NOTDIR, specifically (and I quote) "...Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.". Convention has been set by the previous ADR at which a channel guide was deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Comment on possible canvassing At least one user who has recently !voted to keep in here has commented that he was notified by email of this discussion. [1]. I can find no on-wiki message to him about this, so perhaps there is an offwiki email campaign going around. Heads up, just in case. Them From Space 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the context (the fact the user hasn't edited since 2009), It's probably the case that the user has "E-mail me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" ticked in preferences and received an email when the page was tagged. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. These are unquestionably covered by the policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These lineups somehow violates WP:DIRECTORY because we can't serve readers information about satellite channels that either come and go or are just there... to merely direct readers where the channel is. That is DirecTV's job, not ours. Also, editing and revising the whole table of channels is very complicated, pointless, unnecessary, and time-consuming. Prose is enough; table is excessive. --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, delete all on others, as well, for the same reasons. --George Ho (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR despite arguments in other AfDs as to what constitutes a directory, it seems clear that this does constitute one and falls short of being an encyclopaedic article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful info, I don't see why some people want to delete information that completes their main articles. "DTV has ### channels go to some other website to find out what channels it has" if you delete these lists users or visitors would have to leave wiki to find the what channels are in a cable/sat provider. Plus wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. -AMAPO (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL. Useful does not necessarily fall in line with WIkipedia's policies for what's encyclopedic. Attracting users is not the purpose of Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The validity of an argument does not depend on the bureaucratic designation given to the page where it appears. And that's policy not a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but "Channel Types" which includes the color coding should be remove as that is not needed unless this were a channel directory. Now a few things to note about WP:NOTDIR: 1) Under 1. it says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." These list of channels (although these are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not a list of channels) do "significantly contribute to the list topic" by categorizing them by cable or satellite provider. 2) Under 4. it links to Directory (databases) for its definition of directory. These articles do not fall under that definition. Powergate92Talk 16:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 1 is not relevant, and under Number 4, you are skipping over "Electronic program guide," which is of course what's most similar and up for debate here - not computer databases. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Number 1 is relevant as it's about "Lists" and is under the directory part of what Wikipedia is not. As for number 4, please read the electronic program guide article that you linked to as an electronic program guide list TV shows by channel and time, these articles do not. An example of an article that is an electronic program guide is 2012–13 United States network television schedule, which is kept for historical reasons. Therefore these articles do not fall under electronic program guide. Powergate92Talk 23:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - These lists are not directories per the definition. They do not include programming lists, they are not shilling for the companies involved, and are, as other have said, meticulously updated and maintained. They are emphatically not electronic programming guides. They do not list current, past, or upcoming programming. TV Guide they are emphatically not. The argument against these pages, as summarized by User: George Ho is: "These lineups somehow violates[sic] WP:DIRECTORY..." seems to be the prevailing interpretation. This is an effort by editors who simply don't like the articles to have them deleted. As editor User:Mrschimpf stated, "this series of articles has been a thorn in my side for years." The definition of what constitutes a directory is being stretched so broadly to include these pages that the Billboard chart pages better watch out - they're just a list of songs. Billboard can provide that information on its site, right? Why are we promoting Billboard and the listed artists? List of songs in Guitar Hero and the like better watch out, too - they're just lists of songs. Harmonix Music Systems can provide that information, or Sony or PlayStation 2. Why are we promoting the songs of these artists here? Besides - they're just lists, right? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the song lists that Canadian Bobby picked out are listed that I was fundamental in creating and passing to FL. The reason these lists (which are not directories) are fine is because the contents of the list are necessary to understand the reception of the game, which is judged on the quality of the lists by reviewers. Those lists will never change since the games are released.
- The argument is not these are lists. These are akin to listing out every product sold by a grocery store or a catalog store. It is a list for doing business, even if that is geared towards subscribers. In 100 years, where WP is still around but these networks aren't, these channel directories will have little relevance to the reader. There may be historical channel changes or disputes (as DirecTV has had with some networks) that can be documented in prose, as the listings themselves have little historical relevance. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - So a list of songs is not a directory, but a list of channels is?
  - If in 100 years that is the case, we can open this debate then. Now, they serve a viable, encyclopedic purpose, notwithstanding that editors don't like them. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If from a cable company, cable lineups are defined that way. If not, that depends. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a person who has contributed to a number of these lists, I have found them useful. On the Verizon and AT&T sites, you have to go through a cumbersome act of plugging in zip codes to grab the line-ups especially to factor what regional variations there are in those providers. With the U-Verse line-up article before it was deleted, it had the most comprehensive list of what they carried and the variations by carriage of the east and west coast feeds of cable networks. Also, with the article histories (which get deleted with the articles), I could keep track of all the channel changes especially as providers have been expanding their HD offerings these last few years, it allowed me to keep track of which providers added the HD feeds of the cable networks and when they did it. With DirecTV, Dish, Cablevision, FiOS, and U-Verse available in the region, I have had an interest in keeping track of which providers carried which HD channels and when they were added. Livingonli (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        As mentioned earlier, from WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." It doesn't matter how useful these lists are; they do not meet Wikipedia's policies for what's encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right that it is an essay. Nonetheless, by saying that these articles are useful to you, you are ignoring the main concern here - that these articles violate policy, WP:NOTDIR, and -- while helpful -- are inappropriate for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how difficult it is to navigate Verizon's or AT&T's websites: Wikipedia still does not publish the Yellow Pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The validity of an argument does not depend on the bureaucratic designation given to the page where it appears. And that's policy not a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The Yellow Pages is a book of addresses and phone numbers full of advertisements for local businesses, which is updated annually by the phone company. These articles are nowhere near that, they are updated weekly, if not daily, by people unaffiliated with the company. No one is trying to sell anything, just providing unbiased factual information, the whole point of an encyclopedia in the first place. None of the other criteria of NOTDIR (which it seems you haven't actually read) apply to any of these articles either. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        NOTDIR (like the rest of NOT) is purposely not fully inclusive of all inappropriate types of articles; if editors feel something is a NOTDIR even though it is not explicitly listed (as per the AT&T Uverse AFD), it can still be deleted per NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The Uverse AFD isn't a part of this one, so its discussion and result is irrelevant. Mentioning it is like saying "All the other kids are doing it..."TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh, what? I specifically called out at the Uverse one as a test case to avoid problems with multiple AFDs at the past and made sure that it was announced at VPP and WT:TV. It's result very much should be considered in this AFD. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a metaphor for peer pressure. Haven't you ever been to high school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCat4680 (talk • contribs)
        No, that's not the part I'm questioning. You're trying to sweep the previous AFD aside, despite the fact that it was purposely initiated as a test case for all these articles that all share the same format and appropriate, and was advertised to be such a test case. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That's because every article has its own merits, and it shouldn't be deleted just because it shares a category with another article that has completely different information. Every afd should be judged independently. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In general, that is good advice for prose-heavy articles, but effectively these all have the same basic tables with different sets of data with the same properties (channel, number, format, etc.) There is no reasonable way you can say these lineups are so different from the Uverse one to invalid the consideration of the previous AFD to this one. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        How bout the fact that Uverse is a cable company that is only available in certain parts of 22 states while DirecTV is available in 100% of the country? They're completely different services completely -regional vs national - and their lineups should be treated as such.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope, that doesn't work. It's the same type of content and has nothing to do with what areas they serve or the size of their market. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is they're both TV providers. DirecTV is a national satellite provider, while Uverse is a regional cable service, therefore the latter's AFD should be disregarded. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - More pertinent example for @Masem & @Canadian Bobby: Reading this sub-thread and figuring out that "FL" means Wikipedia:Featured lists led me to articles which seem significantly more analagous to the "List of provider X's channels" case than List of songs in Guitar Hero was. The currently-"featured list" List of Nintendo 64 games, as well as List of PlayStation games and all other articles under Template:Video game lists by platform. To paraphrase @Masem: "These are akin to listing out every product sold by a grocery store or a catalog store. It is a list for doing business, even if that is geared towards gamers. In 100 years, where WP is still around but these games aren't, these game directories will have little relevance to the reader. There may be historical game changes or deletions that can be documented in prose, as the listings themselves have little historical relevance." Should we not then, under almost-identical criteria, AfD all List articles of this type? --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Please focus on these lists at hand. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I disagree. Y'all are not proposing deletion here on the basis of anything inherent about television providers, you're basing, as near as I can tell, solely on WP:NOTDIR. I'm just following the logical implications to articles which are strikingly similar in character solely on the interpretation of NOTDIR that has been argued by y'all in this forum. I see this AfD as sort of a "test case", if you will. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you need to learn the difference between what lists are and what directories are. It is laughable to think that this is a test case for those others. The reason the Uverse AFD was a test case for these is because they all shared the same fundamentally basic format and were directories, failing NOTDIR. You cannot compare these to any of those other lists you've mentioned. (Also finding that you're picking on topics of my interest to be just shy of a personal attack). --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I knew from this sub-thread you were interested in List of songs in Guitar Hero; I didn't check to see if you've edited on video games in general or on "List of games on Platform X" specifically. I'm personally interested in TV station articles, not so much about Lists by Provider - I'm here largely on principle. Not to go too off-topic, but just what is the difference then, between lists and directories? And very briefly, how would the other article type (which seems substantially identical in character) not fail under those same definitions/arguments. Perhaps if I understood the distinction, I could understand the AfD rationale "here" as opposed to "there". --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Directories are typically designed to promote a specific commercial service that is controlled by a single entity, aimed at selling their services or products. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So, e.g. List of Playstation games is not a directory under what theory...? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not under the control of one company, so it's not a resource for doing business. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wouldn't that come as a shock to Sony? --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sony doesn't sell the games. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        This all seems rather poorly-defined, since channels are not fully under the "control" of say, DirecTV. In this scenario, Sony is the hardware, the games are separately-owned software upon which the Playstation depends. As the TV provider is dependent on the separately-owned channels it carries.
        
        So in the hypothetical alternative, one could delete all of the games with no citation or a Sony citation? And in this AfD, delete channels with no or a provider-only citation?
        
        But, as e.g. Electronic Arts sells the games, one could delete all or most of List of Electronic Arts games, and similar? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is poorly defined because what you are asking us to define is basically a sniff test - for these articles on this AFD in question, several look at them and recognize them as directories, but the list of games (whether for the Playstation or EA's catalog), and there's no hint of a directory. I wouldn't contest that there's a possibility the EA list fails per NOTCATALOG but I would not say that with any certainty as it depends on consensus; my guts says you would have a hard time deleting that. The only distinction I can make is that there are sources that talk about the wide catalog of games on the PlayStation, or that EA publishers, but that's probably not going to satisfy you. At times, you have to just shrug and accept what consensus says. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I think they're at the very least, "close enough" to directories. A similar standard to "close enough to an EPG".
        
        Yeah, I imagine too with a restricted pool of editors invited to the dance, that the consensus would turn out counter to any AfD I might propose, as well as this one. It's so much fun dealing with abolutists who don't like something, but will move Heaven and Earth to excuse content if they do like it. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The other way to look at it is the permanence of information. In 100 years, with Wikipedia still going, how encyclopedic is it to know that one could have gotten TNT on channel 150 via DirecTV? Not very much. This information has little permanence. On the other hand, even though there may be no copies left of said games, the fact they existed at one point in time and had sourced information means that the games have permanence of information, and thus an encyclopedic topic. This is not to discount that some channel info on the providers doesn't have permanence, but from everything I've read, its more directed towards when customers are hurt or benefit from the removal or addition of blocks of programming and less about individual stations, and certainly not about the fact of where they sit on the dial. What encyclopedic information that comes from those can be summarized in the body of the provider. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        After puzzling through the double negative, I realized what you were trying to say. Do you have any support for the contention that a product has to be under the control of a single company to be a "resource for doing business"? Or even any vague definition of what that phrase might mean? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a program directory, anyone with a dish has an electronic program guide that is more up to date, and if you don't have a dish, how is the knowledge of local channels useful to you? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I will second and that argument to my own. Spshu (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I don't care about 99% of the articles on here, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - NOTDIR, mostly original research (ie. DirecTV material, press releases), no notability. --Spshu (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break deux[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR ("electronic program guide"). Secondary reasons include how practically impossible it is to keep this type of list up-to-date, given the arbitrary and unannounced manner that TV providers change and reorder their lineups. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a directory or a TV guide or a "how to" guide, by its own policies. Viewers have better ways of finding out what's on TV. BigJim707 (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all To understand what made these companies successful, you need to see what channels they have, that the reason people choose one service or another. List_of_DirecTV_channels_(United_States) has been viewed 108,035 times in the last 30 days. [2] These articles bring a lot of people to Wikipedia, and are useful to some people. Dream Focus 09:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stats are meaningless; the fact that they may be disappointed if deleted is meaningless. They can look elsewhere, like TV Guide or DirecTV. As for success, channel changes rapidly; amount of channels grow, so PPV must have changed from 20 or 10 years ago, right? --George Ho (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then add in a category showing when each was added, and when something was removed. A list doesn't have to be perfect and complete to exist. Dream Focus 11:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be overcategorization, which is discouraged in Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You linked to something that deals with Wikipedia categories. What I'm talking about is the columns of information in a list article. No reason not to add in additional boxes of relevant information which would easily fit on the screen. Dream Focus 15:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Adding another column doesn't help improve or keep this article. Information about every network belongs in the article about one network, like Nickelodeon. --George Ho (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not dispute that To understand what made these companies successful, you need to see what channels they have, but you cannot just throw up a list of channels and say "Well, here you go, figure out yourself why people chose this service", that is an incredible failure of OR. It is much more encyclopedic to have, on the articles about the services themselves, sourced facts that attribute why people chose one service over another, and if it has to do with having certain channels available, then those specific channels can be mentioned, or whatever similar mode there is. (More than likely it is not so much exactly which channels, but the number of channels, the availability of local channels, and the availability of HD forms of channels, rather than any specific channel, that draws subscribers). --MASEM (t) 14:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. The full list of channels is just data. postdlf (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Article is a directory, and has no use otherwise due to lack of historical perspective. Krushia (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was useful to me. With so many channels, and because I watch so little TV, having this at-a-glance listing helps me find what I need. That passes the smell test for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.158.115 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia is not a television guide. Your service should have an on-screen television guide in any case, or there are magazines/newspapers which publish schedules for channels. Your keep votes avoids WP:NOTDIR. doktorb _words^deeds 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful or not, these pages lack historical/encyclopedic perspective, and their main purposes are current listings for current subscribers, similar to DirecTV's and Verizon's purposes. Judging from content, obviously, these pages are very commercial (yet informative), but, even if you add in prose, they still are directories in some way. List of NBC television affiliates tells you which stations are located. Cable/satellite channel lineups merely tell you what channel number the network is located; even when local channels are added there, lineups are still directory to me. --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also please see WP:Useful. Your first words violate this concept. Just because listing all of the phone numbers in an area is useful to people, it's not for Wikipedia. gwickwire | Leave a message 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Were you referring to mine or someone else's? --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above; a few things to note about WP:NOTDIR is 1) Under 1. it says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." These list of channels (although these are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not a list of channels) do "significantly contribute to the list topic" by categorizing them by cable or satellite provider. 2) Under 4. it links to Directory (databases) for its definition of directory. These articles do not fall under that definition. As well, an electronic program guide (see article) list TV shows by channel and time, these articles do not. An example of an article that is an electronic program guide is 2012–13 United States network television schedule, which is kept for historical reasons. Therefore these articles do not fall under electronic program guide. Also as TomCat4680 mentioned above WP:Useful is essay, which is " the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." according to WP:ESSAYS, a Wikipedia policy. Powergate92Talk 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think channel lineups are not directories? You want to stand on your argument as valid, don't you? --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted before, WP:NOTDIR (and WP:NOT in general) is purposely not fully inclusive of examples of what we are not. Thus, just because exactly this type of directory listing is not listed does not mean it is free and clear of failing WP:NOTDIR. If consensus clearly shows that something not listed should fall within that scope, then it is appropriate to considered it within scope, as was done on the previous AFD for AT&T Uverse. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho: 1) These are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not channel lineups. 2) Most list are directories.

George Ho and Masem: As most list are directories, there are certain types of list/directories that are allowed on Wikipedia. If you would read all of WP:NOTDIR you'll see that it actually says in the first two sentences "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." It then continues Under 1. "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." As I said above; these list of channels (although these are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not a list of channels) do "significantly contribute to the list topic" by categorizing them by cable or satellite provider.

Masem: The WP:Consensus at the AT&T Uverse AFD was not a Wikipedia wide consensus as it was among a limited group of editors, and therefore it should not be "considered it within scope" per WP:Consensus#Level of consensus. Also note that consensus can change. Powergate92Talk 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. AFDs are not done in isolation. Further I specifically advertized that one at WT:TV and VPP, since I explicitly started it as a test case for all of these other ones. You cannot disregard that consensus there. (And no, consensus is not going to change from 2 weeks ago) And again, a list of channels a carrier has either needs to be shown as significant via sourcing to show why it is important to list those (per my comment to Dream Focus above), or otherwise it is only a page that has value to those that are subscribers, and ergo, it is not WP's place to perform a function that the providers should be doing in the first place. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) It was still not a Wikipedia wide consensus to delete all list of channels articles, if it was we would not be having this deletion discussion right now. What it was is a deletion discussion limited to one article among a limited group of editors. If you look how many more editors are participating in this AfD, you'll see that was limited group of editors in the other AfD. 2) Yes consensus can change in 2 weeks, and if you look above, as it is right now there is no consensus here to keep or delete. That is a change in consensus from 2 weeks ago, as we're now discussing this among a wider group of editors. Powergate92Talk 22:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs represent global consensus, period. The reason I didn't suggest all such articles at once is that multi AFDs that go beyond 10 or so become logistical nightmares; doing it in smaller batches allows editors to identify exceptional cases to be kept. And the consensus in this one currently weights towards deletion, since the few keeps are based on the "It's useful" fallacy. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enough policy talk; I sense some phony, pretentious attitude when you call something rather than "channel lineup". Back to articles themselves, look at them obviously. There is no need to use policy, essays, or anything else as proofs of your stance. When you look at five seconds of the whole article, obviously, they do not fit in the encyclopedic standards. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) This is a list of wikilinks to TV networks by cable or satellite provider in channel order, not a "channel lineup." 2) If the "Channel Types" which includes the color coding is removed as I suggested above, it will look similar to, for example, List of Me-TV affiliates. Powergate92Talk 22:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That list of Me-TV affiliates suffers the same problem these lists do. Listing the affliates by local city is reasonable, but the stuff with virtual/physical channel is far beyond encyclopedic info. So that should be deleted or modified at some point too. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way you could say List of social networking websites has "far beyond encyclopedic info" with it having "Registered users," "Registration," and "Global Alexa" in its table. But that list is used as an example of a "Sortable lists" at WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#General formatting. Powergate92Talk 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. In the list of social networks, factors like number of users and popularity are significant, important data that is reported in many sources (eg: Facebook passing one billion users was recently covered in news as a significant milestone). So that list is fine. But with these cable offering lists or something like the Me-TV list, most of the information on it is data without any context to why it is necessary to include - there's no significance or the like given. In the case of the Me-TV list, its specific data elements that raise the question of inclusion. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"data without any context to why it is necessary" what about the "Number of players," "ESRB/ELSPA rating," and "Genre" at List of Nintendo 64 games, a featured list. That is very much similar these articles having channel numbers and in some cases channel types. Powergate92Talk 06:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is data that defines what a video game is, and is irrespective of the means of how the video game was or can be acquired. For these provider directories, the data like channel listing is too specific to each entity and has no permanence to be encyclopedically appropriate - it doesn't matter what channel a certain network is on on a certain provider. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Me-TV affiliates and cable/satellitle channel lineups are different from each other. ME-TV is merely over-the-air, while others are cable or satellite. Nevertheless, they are useful to readers but directories to me. I wonder if "List of Me-TV stations" may fail notability and standards of lists. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break trois[edit]

Delete all - List of DirecTV channels (United States) in numerical order might be a better title. In any event, the topic fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:LIST. It may be an information source that has value to some people, but it's not a valuable information source per WP:LISTPURP. There's no Navigation or Development purpose to the list. And the big one, delete per WP:NOTDIR, which notes "article on a radio station should not list ... current schedules". List of AT&T U-verse channels is close enough to that to fall under NOTDIR. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - In spite of comments to the contrary, I don't believe that the general rationale for the existence of these articles is to look up channels on your provider. If you are a subscriber, your provider's electronic program guide(s) is a much better tool for that purpose. Rather, it's not difficult to envision an encyclopedic purpose for these articles. The ready ability to compare and contrast providers (or conversely, to determine a given channel or broadcasting organization's carriage across providers) could easily be used in business planning, in media studies, in students' school papers, in other scholarly works and most likely in other contexts I haven't considered. As I've stated earlier, some of these articles could stand the addition or improvement of coverage of historical and future channels, but flaws in an article shouldn't be a reason for deletion. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The potential media student argument is fair (as I noted to Dream Focus' point), but the format of these articles is woefully unable to address that. Consider the one case of historical program listings we absolutely do keep, the articles like 2012–13 United States network television schedule, in which all options are compared at once with extraneous details removed. A comparable article here would be to have a table, each row a notable broadcast station, each column a provider, and then the table filled with if the provider provides that station and its start and/or end date. Note, however, this would have to be done for every notable provider in the region. You also need to be able to source every point and not just from looking at the channel guide, the references need permanence of some type. I don't believe such an article can be convincibly be created, and instead simply to mention notable channel additions or removals in the articles on each provider themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily the way you would structure it. You could have a (probably sortable) table for each provider's List article; anyone looking up info could use a category (e.g. Category:Lists of television channels by company, or new ones) to gather up for comparison/contrast the providers in which s/he is interested. As for permanence of references, couldn't that be addressed by archive.org or by WebCite or by the fact that citations are not required to be online? And what's the inherent problem exactly with sourcing from the provider's channel guide, I ask, already knowing the answer? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, we need a reason to compare channel lineups on cable providers. We have a good reason to compare show offerings on the major networks because that plays into everything with ratings and viewership competition, and there's plenty of sources for that. While it is possible that this could be important for cable providers as to what stations they provide, there hasn't been a lot of sources to show that importance, so until we see such sources, the presumption that these comparisons are needed is OR. (If anything, my gut tells me that the sources that do exist don't talk about the influence of specific channels, but instead certain blocks, or the availability of high def channels on the whole, but I don't know for certain on this.) Ergo, even a comparison list article is going to be a problem, much less the individual by-provider.
    - As to the sourcing, we strongly discourage the use of sources that can only be accessed by a limited set of people - in this case, the channel lists from your settop as sent to you by the provider. It is only thing to have pay-wall sources which we do accept, but using provider listings that are only there via the settop box is far different - there's no WP:V for those that don't have that service, period. Basically, I would not call the settop channel listings as "published" compared to other sources. If the providers had complete pages of channel offerings that a non-subscriber could see, then they could be used and archived via webcite or similar. But it's been said that the lineups given here are the only complete listings due to lack of effort by the providers to give such, making me question if this is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - To your first point, if I'm reading your argument correctly, you hold that editors must anticipate a use for content before it can be included; IMO, there are inherent implications in WP:PURPOSE and WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that this is not the case.
      - To your second point, most provider websites eagerly tell the general public of their vast and wonderful offerings, this info is not limited via a paywall to subscribers, and these again can be Waybacked or WebCited. Also there are most likely paper channel guides (which WP would allow as a source). As to Verifiability concerns, if a provider were to falsely claim channel carriage to make their product seem better, Wikipedia editors and real-world subscribers would jump on them in a hot minute.
      - Please note that I've added what I feel are more pertinent parallel examples upthread where @Masem & @Canadian Bobby were discussing "Songs on Guitar Hero". --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        First point: yes, it is called notability. We don't include information just because it exists; we include information because there is sourced discussion about it that allows us to create an encyclopedic article. This is why we generally don't include directories, since they rarely can be discussed any more than showing the data "as is".
        
        The second point: it has been said by those who maintain these that the version on WP is the only true, complete version of these listings at times because the providers simply do not keep up their online schedules. If a provide did offer a true complete lineup that anyone could access, that's fine, but the implications given by the ones !voting "keep" suggests this is not the case, that the WP version is the only accurate one. Which we should not be. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        1st point, you're giving me more arguments for my "test case" on analagous articles. 2nd point: titantv.com, TV Guide, Zap2it, etc. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If those directories are fully available at those sites, we have no need to show them here. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems to me to be circular arguments. "If it's only sourced behind an unreliable pay-wall, we can't have the article. If it has a reliable, free source, we still can't have it." --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wrong: if either unsourced or improperly sourced, then improvement is needed. However, even if sourced, as learned from WP:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter, even an article (Good or not) does not fit standards of Wikipedia, especially when it is a subtopic of a high-profile topic. --George Ho (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although it doesn't matter what those who oppose the nominations say. The editors who don't like the articles are determined to have their way and nothing anybody says to the contrary will sway them. Kindly explain to me how this [3], an electronic listing guide, is exactly the same as List of DirecTV local channels with HD. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You shouldn't !vote again, since you already had a keep above. Again, we're not saying these are electric program guides, but instead fit the mold of what WP:NOTDIR gives as examples of directories to not include. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I had thought the topic was 'rebooted' above with it being extended. Apologies. I've seen the phrase "electronic program guide" several times and used as an argument against the pages. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of DirecTV local channels with HD is a bundled copycat of all list of affiliates nationwide. That shouldn't exist in the first place. --George Ho (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, this is regurgitation of material that falls short of our WP:NOTDIR policy and that can be much better presented elsewhere (i.e. by the companies themselves) and in a more reliable and timely fashion than we can here. --MuZemike 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - These articles are have good sources, are useful to users, make information available in ways that may be more accessible, are well maintained, and provide a useful historical record. Deleting them serves little useful purpose. --IMneme (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole argument is a reminiscence of "keep" arguments from WP:articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and WP:articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (2nd nomination). No matter how sourced or consistent, an article is still deleted because a subtopic of a high-profile topic may be unsuitable for Wikipedia. These are extensive pages of subtopics. Unlike season pages of fictional TV shows, even a prose does not overcome a list, like these channel lineups, especially with major flaws. Historical archiving does not overcome primary commercialization of lineups. --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Burn with fire. NOTDIR. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Burn with fire" is not a valid reason to delete. Powergate92Talk 06:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to expand nominations[edit]

Proposal. I propose that all members of Category:Lists of television channels by company also be nominated within this AfD, as well as any substantially similar "List of 'Provider X' channels" which may be found that should have been in that category; as well as the substantially analogous articles List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations and List of XM Satellite Radio channels.

This AfD specifically did not include these articles because of "logistical nightmares; doing it in smaller batches allows editors to identify exceptional cases to be kept." So I further propose that we could (under "Use common sense") customize this AfD such that if it succeeds, the "logistical" problems can be resolved by retaining articles containing "exceptional" content other than the subject of this AfD, with only the content in question being removed from them.

Rationale: It was suggested during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels that, by noting the AfD on the talk pages of substantially similar articles, I was Canvassing. I have serious concerns about editor notifications, which I've raised at Canvassing's talk page. If I had been "canvassing", it was clearly ineffective, as very few additional editors commented on the AfD. Perhaps editors don't view talk pages that frequently, perhaps they don't take things seriously unless an article in which they're interested is tagged for deletion. As @Powergate92 notes upthread, there is now a larger group of editors commenting.

The AfD instructions at WP:BUNDLE state that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes" - a "test case", as "AT&T U-verse" was. By not now nominating all relevant articles here, it could be misconstrued as being another "test case", getting "two bites at the apple", "dividing and conquering", as it were. Specifically, this AfD is mainly US-centric, lacking input from Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand editors, as well as others.

In a sense, this second "test case" could be seen as an example of "anti-Canvassing" - that is, specifically leaving out problematic editors who might object to the deletion of "their" articles.

Comments? I'm sure I'll have many. So be it. :( --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree to delete all. The reasoning to keep just isn't convincing enough. We are supposed to believe that viewers can't access their own on-screen channel guide or a TV magazine? That viewers need Wikipedia to check what channels are in front of them? There is a very long list of things Wikipedia is not here to do - and one of the highest on that list is as a repository for random pieces of fact and trivia. All these lists are essentially trivia. There is no justification for doubling up an existing service on an on-line, edited encyclopedia. None. It's not as though the channels couldn't be edited maliciously, misleading viewers seeking information. It's time to accept that WP:NOTDIR includes these and all of their type. It's time to delete all articles which fall foul of it. doktorb _words^deeds 18:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- My intent is to eventually AFD all these articles, but it has been my experience that no matter how good-faith the effort for that, as soon as you get past a certain number of related articles, you will get people trying to discredit the entire bundled nom due to the size issue. Handling smaller batches allow judgement if exceptional articles should be kept. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Since this AfD will likely prevail anyway, due to voting, what's so wrong with my proposal to be innovative and have a hybrid AfD/"Content for Deletion" here and involve all interested editors. Are we indeed having multiple "test cases"? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The alleged "purpose" of the article content is a straw-man argument. I would refer you to my "Keep all" under "Arbitrary break trois" upthread. "Malicious editing" is a possibility, however that's a danger for all of Wikipedia. I would refer you to The Colbert Report, truthiness and any number of WP page protections implemented during Colbert's airing... --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose we should let this AfD be closed by an independent admin first. Then we should wait a week to allow reasonable time for reviews / appeals / etc. Then a new AfD should be started, if it still seems like a good idea. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not clear to me. Do you oppose my proposal but favor implementing the AfD? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the adding of any more articles to this AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This AfD has been running for 12 days, and has had many comments. We can't assume that any of those comments apply to any articles other than those included in the nomination, so the addition of other articles would require the whole process to be started again. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all the talk of policies and the like, I read WP:BUNDLE closely, as well as Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deletion of large # of articles based on result of one AFD. Per what I found, I posted a question at WP:AN/I#Proper use of AfDs as to whether it is valid to bulk nominate multiple articles which are not extremely close in content.
- Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, there's ZERO point in going to ANI with this. There's no admin action here (outside of the AFD closure, which is certainly not an ANI cause). And if you don't call the fact they have the same format and scope, and just different data "close in content", I really don't know what to tell you. These are all effectively the same. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, there is. I wanted an unbiased opinion of the rules governing AfDs. I looked at Administrator's Noticeboard, but it claimed it was more about Administrators and that AN/I was an appropriate venue for questions. (And I mentioned in the AN/I that it wasn't really an "incident".) I also note that you sought advice about the scope to related articles of the AT&T U-verse AfD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deletion of large # of articles based on result of one AFD, but then seemed to ignore the one response you got. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - ANI is not the place to go for unbiased opinions that need no admin action. You're wasting admins' time there. And no, I did follow the advice, but choose not to do one massive bundle knowing that editors would likely shoot down the excessively large nomination, and instead doing it by region to give time to find exceptions to be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        From AN, "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue, ... you should post it at ANI instead". At AN/I, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". If I'm wasting Admins' time, they can tell me that themselves and recommend a more suitable venue for questioning experienced editors. I've done RfCs before, and they're often answered by just anybody wandering by who may have no more knowledge or experience than I. And no, the responder at AfD Talk said, "AFDs only serve as precedent with regard to the exact same topic [my emphasis], so all of the others will need to go through AFD themselves." So you didn't follow that piece of his/her advice. (BTW, I corrected my link just above to AfD Talk twice, once since you responded. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read the top of WP:AN. There are only specific cases that you should be taking an issue to there or ANI; how to work an AFD is not one of those. You're looking for a third-party opinion, AN/ANI is neither place for that. Also in regards to the thread at WT:AFD, you did see the next sentence: However, to save time and effort, they can all be bundled into a single nomination by following the instructions at WP:BUNDLE? YOu know, what I'm doing right now? --MASEM (t) 21:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I also read English. "They": "With the exact same topic". So the advice is perhaps muddled, or means at most that you can list multiples under the same AfD, but everything I've read concerning AfD today says that each individual article must be decided on its own. I've done third opinions also - with similar results. The person responding has no more or less insight than those in contention. And probably lack the subject-matter interest to make a well-informed decision. I'm strictly asking experienced editors about the correct process. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you even read what I asked in that? I was suggesting if I could have an AFD-less discussion how to deal with the rest of these articles. The advice said, no, they all have to go through AFD since they don't necessarily "have the exact same topic", but bundling them into multiple AFDs is acceptable. That's what I'm doing. There's no other way to read that advice. And again, there are other venues to ask experienced editors beyond AN/ANI. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to delete the ones now. So why added more things to the list when you know the result will be no consensus? And you can't do that once the AFD has been going on this long anyway. Dream Focus 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, we're not supposed to Vote, but I just did a quick count (not checking for duplicates) and the "vote" is 19 deletes and 14 keeps. That "result", plus the fact this AfD is over 7 days old will, if this discussion goes the way it usually does when editors are hell-bent on deleting things, will result in a deletion of all nominated articles. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I find notification of AfDs and mandatory article changes wholly inadequate and believe that the editors of all affected articles should get to express their thoughts, rather than these articles being deleted piecemeal. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - As learned, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Why making vote tally? --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because I fully expect, based on past content deletion battles, that a Vote will be taken. 19 opinions one way and 14 the other doesn't constitute a consensus, and it's well past 7 days, so an Admin should have been asked to close this with no resolution. If the Vote had been more heavily weighted on the Delete side, I'm certain the AfD would have been closed in favor of deletion and over and done with days ago. Instead, the Vote is held open (likely to gather more Deletes). The next tactic I expect is that everyone on the Keep side will have their arguments dismissed as ill-informed and against sacred Policy and thus illegitimate. Do those of you on the Deletionist side understand why so many editors are so frustrated and have come to often loathe what should be a fun, collaborative experience?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - If Wikipedia should be a "fun, colaborative experience", then I shouldn't have made Cheers (season 1) and Cheers (season 2). --George Ho (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - (after edit conflict with George) You seem to think that there's some vast conspiracy among admins to ensure that articles get deleted. Many individual admins have biases and prejudices, but they are all different, so there is no such conspiracy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        To be fair, I haven't been involved in many AfDs, but more deletions of article content. The amount of spiteful and bullying tactics that are often allowed to go unchecked for months and years is astounding! Based on those experiences, I expect that the Keep arguments will be belittled to the closing admin. --Chaswmsday (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all Arguments that these lists are somehow exempt from WP:NOTDIR is just wikilawyering. Minority interest groups wanting to protect their primary source directories often claim that there is some great conspiracy against them. Not so. It is just that the community wants Wikipedia to remain a tertiary source encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So those of us who oppose deletion comprise a "minority interest group" while those who support deletion constitute "the community"? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add since it seems like the issue with the AT&T U-Verse list opened up the whole can of worms since many of these channel line-up pages have been up for years and it seems like only now they have become a cause of complaint of whether these pages have any value on Wikipedia. The biggest issue may be that there is no context and whether keeping a channel history list like have been on the Sirius and XM Satellite Radio pages would make them of greater value. In light of current on-going industry provider disputes with programmers (i.e. DirecTV with Viacom or Dish Network with AMC) that being able to compare what the providers carry since a potential customer's decision to go with a particular provider (besides options like discounts with internet and phone bundles) are what channels are available, whether certain channels are carried in HD since if a provider only carries a certain channel in SD and it has an HD feed, they may decide not to sign up with that provider. In light of the current wave of programmer disputes, these decisions become more prevalent wants to switch providers because their favorite channel was dropped in a dispute. In the case of the List of Me-TV affiliates, the list is a reflection of the digital TV era where most of its distribution is via digital sub-channels where that placement is important. The only thing I would have an issue with that list is that should better define which DMA is served by which Me-TV affiliate which in the New York market might be hard to determine when the New York broadcast affiliate is in Bridgeport which is on the fringe of the market and Time Warner Cable in New York City is providing the channel by carrying the national feed instead of the local affiliate. --Livingonli (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being on WP for a long time is not an argument against deletion. Furthermore, per WP:NOTDIR we are not a resource for conducting business; it is not our responsibility to provide a source for potential customers to compare channel lineups. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete similar others anyway - Obviously, there is no need to create nompages; they are too similar to deal with. As for provider articles with lineups, like Angeles City Cable Television Network, I have discussed this further in WP:VPP#Section of channel lineups in articles of providers, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All. Pages. Like. This. Now. (not another !vote, this is a vote on the expansion). This has gone on long enough, ~~should have been closed instead of relisted (no clue why that happened)~~ see below. These never should have been allowed to stay this long in the first place. I'm not going to bother mentioning policy because it's already mentioned here. Let's just be done with all of these. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was relisted because a non-administrator did close it previously as "kept" without considering the content and merit of arguments themselves. So relist was requested. --George Ho (talk) 04:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I must have missed that while watching this page. Sorry! I will strike that part. Thanks for the clarification! gwickwire | Leave a message 04:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pointy proposal. Will not pass on its merits, nor is this forum equipped to neutralize the inherent bias in the nom's selection criteria. Other AFDs are expected, via process, to continue the arbitrary self-section bias. Path forward is below. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break quatre[edit]

(Very) Strong keep all per NOTDIR, which does not describe them. However, on criteria other than NOTDIR, "Local channel availability ..." makes no sense and can be deleted or merged, and "List of Dish ..." should all 4 be merged. A group of deletionists have seized upon a hairy content dispute over one article (in which I was involved) as an opportunity to attempt to put the ax to perhaps ~~100~~ 480 lists because they believe they are unencyclopedic, despite this never having been codified in any guidance. They obtain occasional agreers because of the poor state of the articles and their superficial appearance to directories. These are not EPGs, program directories, or unilateral output: These are lists of agreements contracted between very major players and are no different from sports rosters (compare cricketers), affiliate lists, music lists, or many featured lists. Denying the argument from other stuff only goes so far: The question is interpretation of NOTDIR, and other stuff informs that interpretation when the text itself is inapplicable. Thus the argument from other stuff has support from significant plurality. I am working on demonstrating encyclopedicity of such articles at User:the "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels (note that that is my permitted, segregated alternate identity). The current discussion is clearly nonconsensus and these titles should not have been nommed as a mass deletion, especially since the first deletion was overturned to userfication and an essentially similar miscellanea deletion discussion on the same history was nonconsensus. Nominate "Local channel availability ..." instead and get some traction first. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out, NOTDIR does not explicitly list out all types of directories that are not appropriate for WP, but only gives examples as to what types of directors are not encyclopedic. So just because this highly specific format isn't among the examples of NOTDIR doesn't exempt it from NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that is why we must look to community practice to interpret NOTDIR, namely, by appealing to the powerful argument from other stuff, which has already swayed a good plurality. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you mind if I move your vote and its replies to #Arbitrary break trois? This section discusses expansion of this nomination. --George Ho (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Retitled subsection. Since there is significant editor keep support via the creation and updating of the 480 articles in the lead category, and only a circle of regulars starting a new interpretation of NOTDIR in opposition, it appears the proper response is to wait for the drumbeats to die down and for a reasonable medium to arrive in which some voice of reason admits that certain articles incorporating lists of channels are in fact not directories (e.g. List of ABC television affiliates (by U.S. state)), and then we can get around to formatting the remaining articles in compliance with the future consensus arising from reason rather than deleting in typically biased fashion. I (and presumably others) will wait. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No is talking about articles like List of ABC television affiliates (by U.S. state); that's far from a directory. On the other hand, these are directories that fail NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 17:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 480 of them per NOTDIR or at least the subset which is nothing more than a list ordered by channel number. IF you create article (chunks) like the top-half of User:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels, that's a different story, but that's not really a list, and it's probably better merged into the main article anyway. The bottom half there however (section List of channels) is really begging for copyvio takedown notice, and it's just WP:GAMING the Wikipedia AfD system. If you want to maintain TV channel lists, do it on Wikia or similar sites. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. We're not a directory and there can be maintenance issues associated with these sorts of articles. I became very involved in trying to calm the edit-warring over List of AT&T U-verse channels and I was happy to see that article deleted. I've written much more on all of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels but I think my points there have largely been covered by others above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:14, 17 October 2012 (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.