Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1959-60 American network television schedule

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

1959-60 American network television schedule
There are many others like these in Category:TV schedules. Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge database nor a directory.. JoaoRicardo 02:50, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, who would want to know this anyway? -- Riffsyphon1024 03:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * People who are interested in or researching the TV industry and history. Zzyzx11 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful, interesting and encyclopedic info that can't easily be found elsewhere (that I know of) Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 03:24, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * The only other place where I know this information can be found is The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows (ISBN 0345455428), but it is not revised every year. Zzyzx11 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are correct on that one. Mike H 05:05, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is very interesting, in a way. What appears on television is a reflexion of how the mainstream person thinks. --Sn0wflake 03:52, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is encyclopedic info that can't easily be found elsewhere. Zzyzx11 04:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a great series of articles, kudos to those who have worked hard to create it. - SimonP 05:00, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created these sets of articles, and I believe these are quite helpful for people who want to research trends in American television history. All of these articles have been linked on the respective year in television page, from 1959 in television to 1996 in television. I haven't been able to finish 1997 to 2002, but I will soon, tomorrow, if possible. Mike H 05:04, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another attempt to stifle the potential of Wikipedia rather than encourage it. Wincoote 07:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you have proof that I am "stifling the potential of Wikipedia", please present them to me or call an RfC. However, if you simply disagree with me on the usefulness of this article, please respect my opinion as I have respected yours. Thank you. JoaoRicardo 02:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't such a schedule belong in Wikisource instead? Radiant! 08:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly? It would be much more useful here in the Wikipedia. I read over what should be in Wikisource and I don't believe this fits the criterion. The whole point was to not only research television trends, but to have the links in an accessible manner, which would have the whole purpose defeated by moving to Wikisource. Mike H 08:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, because it is a primary source, namely the TV guide (hopefully it's not copyvio?). A wikisource article can still have links, including links to Wikipedia. Radiant! 13:45, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would a chart showing what times aired what be a copyvio? It's common knowledge. That would be akin to copyrighting the periodic table of elements. In any case, if you want to continue this conversation, I'd rather it not be on this page, for space reasons. You can continue this with me on my talk page. Mike H 21:12, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- it'll be a wonderful challenge for somebody to try to turn all those red links blue. --Christofurio 15:26, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - encyclopedic as is all the others and I agree with Christofurio that this is a way to challenge people to write articles. Remember the adage: "Wikipedia is not paper". 23skidoo 15:39, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Strong keep!  This is enormously useful information for people who are interested in television history or who are just interested in reliving the TV schedules of their youth.  Television is a big part of US culture (like it or not) and its collective memory, and I'm surprised that anyone would seriously want to delete these contributions to Wikipedia.  Moncrief 04:10, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Factual, verifiable, useful, and cool. Gamaliel 04:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep. Extremely useful information. More deletioncruft madness.--Centauri 12:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please don't refer to diferent opinions than yours as "deletioncruft madness". Please assume good faith and act with civility. Thank you. JoaoRicardo 02:17, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Holy mother of keep. Ditto for the entire series of related articles.  Way too much sweat, toil and actual research went into these articles and they are prime examples of what Wikipedia is and should be. - Lucky 6.9 00:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep this and entire series. Good article. Jayjg (talk)  17:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a very unique and interesting subject article that I have had much trouble trying to find elsewhere. Most Definitely Keep! Tygar 07:32, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Of value Giano 15:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, and useful--SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.