Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:43, 16 November 2018 editLevivich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,429 editsm →1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning): fixed typo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:39, 4 December 2018 edit undoLevivich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,429 edits delrev notice 
(15 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2018 December 4}}</noinclude>

<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. Given that there is a directly on-issue policy based on broad community consensus, in this case ], telling us that our articles are not "electronic program guides", the "keep" opinions would need to be very persuasive and well-grounded in policy. That is not the case. Only Levivich (somewhat joined by Postdlf) makes a valid argument by attempting to persuade us that these are "historically significant program lists and schedules", but I don't see their argument that a random range of some 20 years is "historically significant" convincing many people here. The other "keep" opinions simply refer to past discussions instead of making arguments of their own; they thereby fail to address the ] issue that is the elephant in the room here. Per ] (which is misapplied in the discussion), "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", which means that merely referring to past AfDs is not a strong argument to make in the face of clear policy compliance issues. The "keep" opinions here must therefore be given significantly less weight for mostly not making any policy-based arguments. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|M}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)}}</ul></div> <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles}}{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)}}</ul></div>
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{int:dot-separator}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
:({{Find sources AFD|1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)}}) :({{Find sources AFD|1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)}})
Similar to ] for ], TV schedule with minimal sourcing. Similar to ] for ], TV schedule with minimal sourcing.
Line 38: Line 46:
* '''Comment''': I'm a bit conflicted. I ''could'' see some value in this topic, but the current list do nothing to establish that value. They don't even try and source the small amount of information they do have (at least on the 6 I randomly checked). I think that the minimum, these can be merged into decades so ], ], ], ], ] and ], which will reduce the ~60ish pages to only 6. --] (]) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) * '''Comment''': I'm a bit conflicted. I ''could'' see some value in this topic, but the current list do nothing to establish that value. They don't even try and source the small amount of information they do have (at least on the 6 I randomly checked). I think that the minimum, these can be merged into decades so ], ], ], ], ] and ], which will reduce the ~60ish pages to only 6. --] (]) 14:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
**As a probably better alternative to decade lists, there are also parent articles for each network season, such as ]; whether these should be merged to those is a question of ]. But there are clearly many ], and not a plausible argument that this information is unverifiable notwithstanding the current state of sourcing in each article. ''']''' ('']'') 15:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC) **As a probably better alternative to decade lists, there are also parent articles for each network season, such as ]; whether these should be merged to those is a question of ]. But there are clearly many ], and not a plausible argument that this information is unverifiable notwithstanding the current state of sourcing in each article. ''']''' ('']'') 15:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
**Another alternative might be to consolidate the prime time, weekday, late night, and Saturday morning pages into sections within one page per TV season, e.g., ''1950–51 US network television schedule'' would have sections for prime time, weekday, etc., within one article. Combining an entire decade into one article may make that article unwieldy. ] (]) 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
* '''Delete''': I believe these, in their current state, fail to show notability. I also don't think they can be notable in the current article scheme, but maybe an article that deals with programming in each decade, which has much more context to it, could be. But that is not an argument that this article could be better, its an argument that this article is not and never will be that article. As I've stated above, they also fail ] and ]. As to comment above, those articles aren't any better. They are a giant ] and while the article you linked to has some references, the two inline ones, one has almost nothing to do with the article content, the other does not support notability (for the subject), it just gives verification for the ratings. --] (]) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC) * '''Delete''': I believe these, in their current state, fail to show notability. I also don't think they can be notable in the current article scheme, but maybe an article that deals with programming in each decade, which has much more context to it, could be. But that is not an argument that this article could be better, its an argument that this article is not and never will be that article. As I've stated above, they also fail ] and ]. As to comment above, those articles aren't any better. They are a giant ] and while the article you linked to has some references, the two inline ones, one has almost nothing to do with the article content, the other does not support notability (for the subject), it just gives verification for the ratings. --] (]) 16:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
**NOTTVGUIDE was addressed at length in past AFDs on this content (as was notability and verifiability for network schedules generally). Suffice to say here that by its own terms NOTTVGUIDE makes clear that historic lists are not violations. So unless you're a time traveler... ''']''' ('']'') 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC) **NOTTVGUIDE was addressed at length in past AFDs on this content (as was notability and verifiability for network schedules generally). Suffice to say here that by its own terms NOTTVGUIDE makes clear that historic lists are not violations. So unless you're a time traveler... ''']''' ('']'') 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Line 47: Line 56:
:* "historically significant program lists and schedules '''may''' be acceptable," ... please note the emphasis on the word may, it doesn't automatically exclude these from being classified as ] especially without some significant third party sources. Since none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever, perhaps you are willing to provide proof of verifibility. I'm assuming the editor mostly responsible for tabulating these historical TV listings have 40+ year old TV guides tucked away somewhere. After three AfD's, nobody has been able to provide this fundamental content thus far. ] (]) 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC) :* "historically significant program lists and schedules '''may''' be acceptable," ... please note the emphasis on the word may, it doesn't automatically exclude these from being classified as ] especially without some significant third party sources. Since none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever, perhaps you are willing to provide proof of verifibility. I'm assuming the editor mostly responsible for tabulating these historical TV listings have 40+ year old TV guides tucked away somewhere. After three AfD's, nobody has been able to provide this fundamental content thus far. ] (]) 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
::* ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]. (Are 18 examples enough?) I agree "may" is permissive not mandatory, but "none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever" is not accurate. Additionally, as you said, TV Guide is a reliable source for TV listings. TV listings were also published in newspapers, online, although some (like NYTimes) are behind a paywall. that have historical listings (reliability unknown). In addition to TV Guide and newspapers, there are books published with old schedules, which are often the sources listed in these articles. For example, '']'', which won a National Book Award in 1980. These TV listings are historically significant, verifiable, do not violate any wikipolicy, and all previous AfDs resulted in keep. Why should these pages be deleted? ] (]) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC) ::* ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]. (Are 18 examples enough?) I agree "may" is permissive not mandatory, but "none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever" is not accurate. Additionally, as you said, TV Guide is a reliable source for TV listings. TV listings were also published in newspapers, online, although some (like NYTimes) are behind a paywall. that have historical listings (reliability unknown). In addition to TV Guide and newspapers, there are books published with old schedules, which are often the sources listed in these articles. For example, '']'', which won a National Book Award in 1980. These TV listings are historically significant, verifiable, do not violate any wikipolicy, and all previous AfDs resulted in keep. Why should these pages be deleted? ] (]) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
:::*A TV guide showing the schedule is the definition of ], which also explicitly mentions ], which this is the exact same thing. Think these are notable, then create and article with some context to show ''how'' it is notable. There is not even an article about "Saturday Morning programming" which even further emphasis the point that these listings are just WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also, if you try and prove a point, please try and actually be honest. Out of all the linked articles you gave with sources, only 2 belong to the nominated list and both use a copy/paste general reference to a book "The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984." with no in-line references and nothing to show that it actually talks about anything related. And again, just showing that the list exists does not show notability (and also small nitpick, the first discussion was "no-consensus" not "keep", there is a difference). --] (]) 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
::::*See ], which was also raised in the ]. You still are just repeating objections that were responded to there and in other related AFDs, rather than advancing the discussion, or engaging with the subject matter in a knowledgeable way as to why this is significant history for broadcast television and the particular series listed (again, which has been explained in prior AFDs on U.S. TV network schedules). You are also focused on the current state of sourcing rather than whether it is verifiable. General references are fine, btw, and certainly sufficient to demonstrate verifiability (not that there's a serious argument presented that this information is not verifiable); the lack of inline citations is not a delete-worthy flaw. ''']''' ('']'') 15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
::::*I view ] as one group. I can see the value in merging them in one way or another, but I do not think they should be deleted. They're notable (the schedules, as schedules, receive significant treatment from reputable independent sources, of which there are examples above and in previous AfD discussions), and they're verifiable (if one wished, one could verify that show X aired on day/time Y, by reference to reliable independent sources that exist, such as TV Guide, newspaper listings, and other examples that are listed above and in previous AfD discussions). NOTTVG permits it as a historical schedule, so that's not a reason for it to be deleted. That the sources are not yet listed in all the articles is also no reason to delete them, in my opinion. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, "unless you go and add citations, we should delete this page." If it's notable, and it's verifiable, it should stay. ] (]) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ] (]) 08:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
*'''Keep all''' - per wording of ] and reasons given in previous unsuccessful AfDs linked to by Levivich and Postdlf '''-- ]<sup>]</sup>''' 09:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
:* The wording of ] does not exclude these types of articles from being exempt from ]. Refer to above comments. ] (]) 09:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
::And yet the wording in NOTTVGUIDE is there and seems most relevant to me. My opinion remains the same '''-- ]<sup>]</sup>''' 22:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
*'''Keep all and restore''' the one that was already deleted as a ludicrous violation of ] attempting to override the consensus of multiple previous AfDs with vastly more participation (very curious to know why ] closed it that way – without even relisting it once! – when this fact was quite obvious). I would not necessarily be opposed to ]'s merger proposal, as the number of pages may indeed be overwhelming for readers, but that can be discussed separately. ] (]) 07:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
:* The deleted article was unsoured. Unless anyone can, and is willing to, adequately add sourced to it (as well as all the others) it should not be restored. ] (]) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
*'''Delete all'''. Violations of ] and ]. If people interested in these articles can't be bothered to source them after, in some cases, nearly ten years, I don't see why Misplaced Pages should continue to indulge them. No sources = no article. ] 10:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
*'''Delete all''' per nomination. The contested articles explicitly violate ]. Results of past AfDs that might have ignored ] are irrelevant; editors can often go wrong in their suggestions and thus form a misguided consensus: Misplaced Pages's aforementioned guidelines have not been affected. Editors who suggest Keeping the article are invoking those guidelines without providing the exact text in them that permits this type of lists to appear in Misplaced Pages. Of course, there is no such text.
:The ] only amplifies the lists' lack of ]: {{tq|Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as the notability guidelines}}. Thankfully, ]. -] (]) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
{{clear}}
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 23:39, 4 December 2018

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 December 4.
For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages: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. Given that there is a directly on-issue policy based on broad community consensus, in this case WP:NOTTVGUIDE, telling us that our articles are not "electronic program guides", the "keep" opinions would need to be very persuasive and well-grounded in policy. That is not the case. Only Levivich (somewhat joined by Postdlf) makes a valid argument by attempting to persuade us that these are "historically significant program lists and schedules", but I don't see their argument that a random range of some 20 years is "historically significant" convincing many people here. The other "keep" opinions simply refer to past discussions instead of making arguments of their own; they thereby fail to address the WP:NOTTVGUIDE issue that is the elephant in the room here. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS (which is misapplied in the discussion), "consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale", which means that merely referring to past AfDs is not a strong argument to make in the face of clear policy compliance issues. The "keep" opinions here must therefore be given significantly less weight for mostly not making any policy-based arguments. Sandstein 11:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

AfDs for this article:

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to AFD for 1996–97 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), TV schedule with minimal sourcing.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

1961–62 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1962–63 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1963–64 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1964–65 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1965–66 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1966–67 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1967–68 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1968–69 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1969–70 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1970–71 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1971–72 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1972–73 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1973–74 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1974–75 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1975–76 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1976–77 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1977–78 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1978–79 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1979–80 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Trivialist (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America 02:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America 02:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," ... please note the emphasis on the word may, it doesn't automatically exclude these from being classified as WP:NOT especially without some significant third party sources. Since none of these articles have any sourcing whatsoever, perhaps you are willing to provide proof of verifibility. I'm assuming the editor mostly responsible for tabulating these historical TV listings have 40+ year old TV guides tucked away somewhere. After three AfD's, nobody has been able to provide this fundamental content thus far. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A TV guide showing the schedule is the definition of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which also explicitly mentions Electronic program guide, which this is the exact same thing. Think these are notable, then create and article with some context to show how it is notable. There is not even an article about "Saturday Morning programming" which even further emphasis the point that these listings are just WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Also, if you try and prove a point, please try and actually be honest. Out of all the linked articles you gave with sources, only 2 belong to the nominated list and both use a copy/paste general reference to a book "The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984." with no in-line references and nothing to show that it actually talks about anything related. And again, just showing that the list exists does not show notability (and also small nitpick, the first discussion was "no-consensus" not "keep", there is a difference). --Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • See Saturday-morning cartoon, which was also raised in the previous AFD. You still are just repeating objections that were responded to there and in other related AFDs, rather than advancing the discussion, or engaging with the subject matter in a knowledgeable way as to why this is significant history for broadcast television and the particular series listed (again, which has been explained in prior AFDs on U.S. TV network schedules). You are also focused on the current state of sourcing rather than whether it is verifiable. General references are fine, btw, and certainly sufficient to demonstrate verifiability (not that there's a serious argument presented that this information is not verifiable); the lack of inline citations is not a delete-worthy flaw. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I view all the TV schedule articles as one group. I can see the value in merging them in one way or another, but I do not think they should be deleted. They're notable (the schedules, as schedules, receive significant treatment from reputable independent sources, of which there are examples above and in previous AfD discussions), and they're verifiable (if one wished, one could verify that show X aired on day/time Y, by reference to reliable independent sources that exist, such as TV Guide, newspaper listings, and other examples that are listed above and in previous AfD discussions). NOTTVG permits it as a historical schedule, so that's not a reason for it to be deleted. That the sources are not yet listed in all the articles is also no reason to delete them, in my opinion. I strongly disagree with the suggestion that, "unless you go and add citations, we should delete this page." If it's notable, and it's verifiable, it should stay. Levivich (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
And yet the wording in NOTTVGUIDE is there and seems most relevant to me. My opinion remains the same -- Whats new? 22:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep all and restore the one that was already deleted as a ludicrous violation of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS attempting to override the consensus of multiple previous AfDs with vastly more participation (very curious to know why User:Sandstein closed it that way – without even relisting it once! – when this fact was quite obvious). I would not necessarily be opposed to User:Gonnym's merger proposal, as the number of pages may indeed be overwhelming for readers, but that can be discussed separately. Modernponderer (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The deleted article was unsoured. Unless anyone can, and is willing to, adequately add sourced to it (as well as all the others) it should not be restored. Ajf773 (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Violations of WP:NOTDIR and WP:V. If people interested in these articles can't be bothered to source them after, in some cases, nearly ten years, I don't see why Misplaced Pages should continue to indulge them. No sources = no article. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nomination. The contested articles explicitly violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Results of past AfDs that might have ignored WP:NOTTVGUIDE are irrelevant; editors can often go wrong in their suggestions and thus form a misguided consensus: Misplaced Pages's aforementioned guidelines have not been affected. Editors who suggest Keeping the article are invoking those guidelines without providing the exact text in them that permits this type of lists to appear in Misplaced Pages. Of course, there is no such text.
The lack of supporting sources only amplifies the lists' lack of encyclopaedic purpose: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Misplaced Pages's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Misplaced Pages is not, as well as the notability guidelines. Thankfully, Misplaced Pages is not yet an indiscriminate listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
Category: