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

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:57, 16 November 2018 editAjf773 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users22,714 edits comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:32, 16 November 2018 edit undoLevivich (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers40,421 edits →1960–61 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)Next edit →
Line 46:		Line 46:
	* '''Keep all''' for the reasons listed in the ] (result: default keep), ] (result: keep), and ] (result: keep), and the links in those discussions to outside articles discussing the significance of TV scheduling. ] says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," and these TV schedules are historically significant. Television is one of our primary methods of mass communication and cultural transmission, and the first 100 years of television is still "early television." The schedule of early TV broadcasts seems no less relevant than ], ], or ]. ] is Verifi'''ability'''; these schedules are verifiable, and are sourced in at least some (many?) of the schedules. I'm a new editor and don't understand all these policies, but I thought inline sourcing isn't required, and a lack of sourcing is a reason to expand an article, not delete it. ] (]) 23:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)		* '''Keep all''' for the reasons listed in the ] (result: default keep), ] (result: keep), and ] (result: keep), and the links in those discussions to outside articles discussing the significance of TV scheduling. ] says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," and these TV schedules are historically significant. Television is one of our primary methods of mass communication and cultural transmission, and the first 100 years of television is still "early television." The schedule of early TV broadcasts seems no less relevant than ], ], or ]. ] is Verifi'''ability'''; these schedules are verifiable, and are sourced in at least some (many?) of the schedules. I'm a new editor and don't understand all these policies, but I thought inline sourcing isn't required, and a lack of sourcing is a reason to expand an article, not delete it. ] (]) 23:10, 15 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)		:* "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 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)

Revision as of 17:32, 16 November 2018

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

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

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

(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:

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)

Keep all per discussion and arguments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), to which this nomination obviously adds absolutely nothing. And restore the one deleted based on two participants here. postdlf (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete all. Unsourced for a number of years, no evidence of notability and no effort whatsoever to bring these up to standard despite previous AfD's. Most of the previous 'keep' votes were swayed towards WP:ILIKEIT rather than actual policy. Ajf773 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's rather dismissive of what were very substantial AFDs on this content with high participation, not a rebuttal of the arguments or sources presented in them. I'd rather not copy and paste all of those comments directly here, as they should be considered incorporated by reference. See also WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  - Please don't exaggerate. The AfD you linked to had 7 people. Not substantial and not that much different from this one. Also, your link is an essay so has zero weight in any discusion, but if you are already reading that page, see WP:VALINFO. These pages fail WP:V (policy), they are fail WP:NOTTVGUIDE (policy) and they fail to show any WP:N (guideline). --Gonnym (talk) 16:03, 11 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 1960s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1970s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1980s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 1990s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, 2000s United States Saturday morning network television schedule and 2010s United States Saturday morning network television schedule, which will reduce the ~60ish pages to only 6. --Gonnym (talk) 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 1960–61 United States network television schedule; whether these should be merged to those is a question of WP:SIZE. But there are clearly many alternatives to deletion, and not a plausible argument that this information is unverifiable notwithstanding the current state of sourcing in each article. postdlf (talk) 15:49, 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 WP:V and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. As to comment above, those articles aren't any better. They are a giant WP:NOTTVGUIDE 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. --Gonnym (talk) 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... postdlf (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  - I dispute the claim that this has any historic significance as it requires. Also, your argument just falls short when it's a matter of fact, that these lists are created for every year, regardless of "history" or "significance", see 2018–19 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning). By this one can assume, that every TVGUIDE that has been shown is "historic" and thus exempt, which is really not what the exemption meant. --Gonnym (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    - When it comes to U.S. TV network schedules, they are, and that's exactly what was found at the prior AFDs. Something else instead is contemplated by NOTTVGUIDE. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Tentative keep I do think merging these into by-decades lists would be better, and that generally for at least US television, these schedules usually help in understanding programming competition (but I can't recall how bad that was for SatAM). There's definitely also the history from the golden age of animation to the death of SatAm programming that these help to support (eg ) Probably need some legwork to get books etc to better support. --Masem (t) 00:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Delete -- I cannot believe that this is a serious way to catalogue TV programs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Keep all for the reasons listed in the 2007 RfD discussion (result: default keep), 2012 RfD discussion (result: keep), and 2015 RfD discussion (result: keep), and the links in those discussions to outside articles discussing the significance of TV scheduling. WP:NOTTVGUIDE says "historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable," and these TV schedules are historically significant. Television is one of our primary methods of mass communication and cultural transmission, and the first 100 years of television is still "early television." The schedule of early TV broadcasts seems no less relevant than an early modern Olympics schedule (FA-class), the dates/years of performances during Shakespeare's lifetime (B-class), or a schedule of who was printing what where in the first 100 years of the printing press (B-class). WP:V is Verifiability; these schedules are verifiable, and are sourced in at least some (many?) of the schedules. I'm a new editor and don't understand all these policies, but I thought inline sourcing isn't required, and a lack of sourcing is a reason to expand an article, not delete it. Levivich (talk) 23:10, 15 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)

The best evidence that these TV schedule articles are verifiable is that many of them have references listed. (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. (And you can buy old ones online; they're collectibles now.) TV listings were also published in newspapers, some of which are available online, although some (like NYTimes) are behind a paywall. There are also websites 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, The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows 1946–Present, which won a National Book Award in 1980. These TV listings historically significant, verifiable, do not violate any wikipolicy, and all previous AfDs resulted in keep. Why should these pages be deleted? Levivich (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Categories: