Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

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. The deletion votes were stronger than the keeps. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this directory info. JJL (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Its not a directory, its a just a novel navigation device. We have the same for US television and radio. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:WAX should be avoided. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:WAX is a nice argument for content, this, however is a navigation device. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I fail to see any reason why the class of this article would exempt it. No such exception is mentioned. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - Per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Pure deletionist copyright paranoia. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. An interesting historical artefact, consistent with existing articles at United States primetime network television schedules which survived deletion discussion. WWGB (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  See WP:WAX. The deletion debate you mentioned was in 2007 - it is hardly relevant. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide; what makes this schedule historically significant? --Cybercobra (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: A television schedule. Joe Chill (talk) 05:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Nice looking article, transwiki to at least somewhere. Dr. Eme (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
• DELETE Ironclad case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Indiscriminate info, unsuitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOTDIR, section 4, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." That also means, of course, that they may not be, but it's not exactly ironclad. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You haven't explained how TV schedules in every single year in every single country is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to explain what the authors of that part of WP:NOT were thinking. Mandsford (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment but since it says they may be acceptable if they are historically significant, a case needs to be made for the historical significance of these schedules. JJL (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: If television schedules are so important why not create television schedule instead of making a directory of old TV Guides? Even an old TV Guide has no historical significance. What you guys are saying is that old TV Guides from 2008 and below are historically significant without explaining how it is. Whenever anyone posts links, it always shows notability for television and not the individual old TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Husband: I'm going to throw away last years TV Guide.
• Wife: Don't! Copy it onto Wikipedia!
• Husband: Why?
• Wife: The TV Guide is historically significant now that it's a year after.
• Husband: Okay. I'll type this up on Wikipedia.
• Wife: Get my mom's old TV Guides from the attic and type those up also! Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: Please consider together the related open AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). JJL (talk) 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Either this is a copy (not an encyclopedic treatment, but just a copy) of a primary source (like the weather report), or it is unsourced. Could it survive on Wikisource? Probably not, since TV Guide and the like have that pesky © symbol. Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Keeping such articles about the schedule (as opposed to daily programming) is consistent with WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory which says "..historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." The networks schedule should not be trivialized and misrepresented as mere "TV Guide," which says what the program's episode will be on a particular day. In a given country, the network TV schedules have typically been discussed in more depth in magazines and newspaper media columns, than mere listings of the days programming. The scheduling choices, and their effects on the ratings of programs, are part of the subject matter of college courses in broadcasting and media. The schedule is a strategic choice of what program leads into a given program, and what the competition is in a time slot. Besides satisfying notability a country's network programming schedule is a useful organizational tool, providing information not clearly seen in individual articles about the programs. Edison (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Scheduling choices generally perhaps, but this schedule specifically? What makes this one "historically significant" as required by WP:NOT? --Cybercobra (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Is this article actually necessary? PhillieLWillie(Talk) 00:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment "Necessity," or lack thereof are not guidelines or policies, so far as I know, to on which deletion arguments can be based. Edison (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's significant as the history of the real world presentation of a major artform. I note the repeated use of Harry and Louise arguments, which do not help rational discussion. And we have artitcles because they;'re desirable, not necessary. Very few articles are necessary, strictly speaking. If the criterion were necessary, we could have concluded the orihect some years ago, and had a nice abridged encyclopedia. . DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced are provided as to why this is Historically significant, Gnangarra 11:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Showing a historic list of every show ever shown on a notable network, is perfectly fine by almanac standards for the Wikipedia. Television plays a massive role in shaping people's opinions, and affecting the world. If someone wanted to see where and when shows were at, and then do a study to determine how each one affected someone, this might be of use. It also shows how the taste of the people changed over time, what sort of thing they watched year by year. Dream Focus 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#The_consensus_so_far shows that 21 editors feel these guides are unencyclopedic, ten think some are acceptable, and five think all such guides are appropriate for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 21:56, 21 August 2009 (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.