Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1957 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) 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this directory info. JJL (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (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)
 * firstly, Norton hasn't posted here, secondly, where is copyright mentioned anywhere? We have this thing called WP:AGF, y'see, don't know if you've read it, and it has some very specific views on attributing motives to users. Ironholds (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See my response on the 1990 schedule post. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Since when has Wikipedia been a television guide?keystoneridin! (talk) 04:15, 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) 04:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide; what makes this schedule historically significant? --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A television schedule. Joe Chill (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't conceive of any basis upon which to deem this article's subject matter as Notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:24, 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  &#124; Talk 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Since the rationale is the same for the nomination of this and the other articles is that there should not be articles about any television schedule in any place in any year, it would have been appropriate to list them altogether. Certainly, a good faith nomination, and people complain either way, but this is not a case where some years' schedules are more notable than those of other years.  Too late to say make this a mass nomination, and no reason I can't paste my reasoning elsewhere.  Still, it's not a TV guide, because nobody is planning to travel to 1957 to watch these shows; and it's no more a directory than a list of cabinet members of a particular administration would be.  Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "It's no more a directory than a list of cabinet members of a particular administration would be." Funny. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, that was a terrible analogy. The programme "Happy Go Lucky" isn't really a good comparison to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.  Still, per WP:NOTDIR, "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." Since it's suggested that a US schedule is historically significant, maybe the Australian one is less so.  Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't explained how every TV schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 00:22, 14 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) 00:28, 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) 00:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Please consider together the related open AfDs Articles for deletion/1957 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Articles for deletion/1958 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Articles for deletion/1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Articles for deletion/1990 Australian network television schedule (weekday), Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). JJL (talk) 02:37, 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) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Raw (and outdated) television schedule with nothing to indicate why this is particularily interesting. For that matter, I cannot see what useful purpose this page serves. If there were a historical interest in Australian television, and that may well be the case, surely some prose instead of the television schedule would be much better. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mandsford. This is not "TV Guide" which describes the episode content on a particular day. It is fully consistent with the text of WP:NOT, and scheduling choices are the subject of scholarly discussion in broadcasting textbooks, satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scheduling choices generally perhaps, but this schedule specifically? What makes this one "historically significant" as required by WP:NOT? --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:42, 14 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.    DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are provided as to why this is Historically significant, Gnangarra 11:26, 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.   D r e a m Focus  16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as this barebones schedules does not provide any evidence of notability. Coverage of TV schedules needs be balanced between the primary source (the schedule itself) and reliable secondary sources (that provide some sort of context), otherwise they are not encylopedic and fail WP:NOT. Arguments based on WP:IKNOWIT (e.g. "significant", "historical", "major artform", etc) make no sense unless evidence of notability can be provided to support these assertions. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete As it stands these articles are simply awful, the color scheme and layout hurts my eyes. However a listing and written articles on TV stations decision to axe certain programmes etc is definately encyclopedic. Might I propose an article 1957 in Australian television and merge it into a written article by year instead? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Anyone got some really old mags in their garage? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not 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.