Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)


 * 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   KEEP As sympathetic as I am to the nominator's arguments, the consensus is to keep. I believe he acted in good faith by attempting to find someone to source them first before coming here. As for other concerns raised in this discussion, (1) For better or worse, Saturday morning tv is a central part of US popular culture, but it may help to convince non-US folks of this by adding information in the header -- say, the number of average viewers for each season; (2) AFAICS, none of the other Saturday morning tv schedules have been merged to the general schedule; for that to happen (which IMHO is a proposal worth discussing) one would need to start a discussion at WP:RM. -- llywrch (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I found these while working WP:URA, where I am working on the oldest group of unreferenced articles. There are 6 articles at the top of Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 about network TV schedules, completely without references. Some of the articles in the series (1961–1962 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)) where sourced with Source: The TV Schedule Book, Castleman & Podrazik, McGraw-Hill Paperbacks, 1984., which is a bit early for some of the remaining articles. There was a previous AfD on the larger group which passed No consensus. I presented a request at WikiProject Television for assistance finding references. The outcome is that is no interest in this project for improving or maintaining these articles. Per WP:DIRECTORY " electronic program guide" are fail WP:NOT unless they are of historically significance. There is no indication of significance or notability. The only response from the project was to delete the articles. Jeepday (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This a group nomination for these articles


 * We could use as a reference, but that doesn't look like a very reliable source to me. Hut 8.5 12:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think the reference you cite is perfectly fine for this purpose and fail to see what benefit to the project that deletion would accomplish. Useful as a list and a source of in-links. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all. The "it's useful" argument above isn't valid when these lists violate Wikipedia policy.  Blatantly inconsistent with WP:NOT/WP:DIRECTORY.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, "it's useful" is a valid argument for a list, which each of these are, even though they don't look like most lists. There is no doubt as to accuracy, the inclusion criteria are clear, the links are all blue... Carrite (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it would reduce controversy, change names to List of American Saturday morning television shows, 1981-1982, etc. The current name strikes me as being more simple however. There is a valid navigational function for each of these. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even though the article is a list and doesn't look like a standard list, the core of the information that is within the article is very relevant, it is of some historical value. If some would like to remember which television show would pass in such a time of day in a specific year this article could be of a potential solution, and that is what a encyclopedia is formed of, compressed information (for a single unity), but a huge ammount of it (for the group). Eduemoni↑talk↓  14:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article should also improve its reliability with the addition of verifiable sources. Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just curious how is the article going to improve its reliability? The addition of published WP:RS is trump card for showing WP:N and meeting WP:V. The WP:Burden for adding those reference is on content supports not on the article.  There truly are no articles that have been tagged as unreferenced longer then these as evidenced by Category:Articles lacking sources from September 2006. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carrite and Eduemoni. All of these TV shows are notable, and organizing them by the programming blocks, seasons, and networks on which they aired is not only "useful," but one of the most obvious ways to index them. These lists also further coverage of the networks themselves, and American television generally, particularly at a time when the three networks were American television for most people, and that's where your "historical significance" comes in. WP:NOTDIR, though it usually fails to offer any semblance of clear guidance regarding lists, expressly states that "mention of...historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable," to the extent anyone is looking for express "permission" for these existing. The one time I could find in the WP:NOT archive that these schedule lists were discussed directly, there was a clear consensus that they were not NOTDIR violations (or at the very least, a clear recognition that there was such a consensus in the community at large). As Masem noted in that discussion, it would be a completely different matter if these were day-by-day schedules, which then would be a WP:NOTTVGUIDE issue, but these annual network schedules pose no NOTDIR problem. Finally, I do not believe for a second that any network schedules are unverifiable, even if not verified at present. postdlf (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a longer and more recent discussion here which is more ambiguous. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly redirect to 1981–82 United States network television schedule etc. Wikipedia articles should not consist of TV schedules. WP:NOTDIR says only that mention of ... historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. If these particular TV schedules were historically significant then we would expect coverage of them in third-party reliable sources. The articles do not cite any such sources despite the fact that they have existed for over five years, have had an unreferenced tag on it for the vast majority of that time, and many people (including the relevant Wikiproject) haven't been able to find references. If there were references that discussed the TV schedules in question then we may be able to expand the articles so that they discussed the efforts of the various networks to get or retain market share, at which point the page ceases to be a mere TV schedule and becomes an encyclopedia article, such as 1953–54 United States network television schedule. But the five-year history of these pages shows that such a thing is unlikely to happen. The argument that "it's useful" is a valid argument for a list is flawed. WP:LIST does say that The list may be a valuable information source, however this is a sufficient criterion, not a necessary one. To see this consider a hypothetical page called List of companies by telephone number. Such a thing blatantly violates WP:NOTDIR, which is why it doesn't exist, but it is a list and it would be useful to some of our readers. The fact that information could conceivably be useful to our readers does not mean we should provide it if it goes against our purpose as an encyclopedia. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete All - per NOTDIRECTORY. Arguments of "it's useful" absolutely do not trump that. Quite the opposite.Yaksar (let's chat) 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; 1980-1984 are easily sourced to Castleman and Podrazik's 1984 book The TV Schedule Book: Four Decades of Network Programming from Sign-On to Sign-Off from McGraw-Hill. Castleman and Podrazik's book ends with the Fall 1983 schedule, but I'm quite certain other sources exist for the more recent years. I've been able to source and find critical commentary in reliable sources for every network television season between Fall 1946 (DuMont's and NBC's first TV seasons, before CBS and ABC operated television networks) and Fall 2007 (the last listed in Brooks and Marsh's 2007 book). These things just take time, since Wikipedia is a work in progress. A note at WikiProject Television Stations might have helped, since I have that project watchlisted, and there are several clever editors there with reams of reference material on network info. BTW, any schedules for non-broadcast (ie cable channels) should probably be culled from schedules in the 1990s; none of the major authors cover those. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the reference, I did not post a message at WikiProject Television Stations because it is not listed on the articles talk page, so only went to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television. I believe the articles still fail WP:NOT, and while you are correct "Wikipedia is a work in progress", it does not mean that articles have eternity to address a request for references or to show WP:N.  These article have been tagged for more then 4 years. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, four years is not an "eternity" by any stretch of the imagination; it is four years, but unlike many of the 2,400 other articles tagged in October 2006, these can be referenced. Now that I have added references for 1981-1984, will you strike through your nomination of those years? Serious reference works exist for U.S. network television schedules for the years 1946-2007: they appear in Castleman and Podrazik (1982), Castleman and Podrazik (1984), Castleman and Podrazik (2002), Brooks and Marsh (2007 and earlier editions), McNeil (1996 and earlier editions), and Bergmann and Skutch (2002), and are discussed at great length in other scholarly works (I own each of these books except Castleman and Podrazik's 2002 update). Brooks and Marsh and McNeil are television encyclopedias, with the other books also being valuable reference works. Castleman and Podrazik's works are of most use in this debate because they specifically list network schedules for the years in question on Saturday mornings. According to the Five pillars of what Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is supposed to "incorporate elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". This is supposed to be a "fundamental principle" of Wikipedia. Wikipedia should never ever remove material covered in serious printed reference works, and these schedules have all been noted somewhere. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have the references that show WP:N then add them to the articles. That will end any discussion about WP:N as they will meet the nutshell description of meeting "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained significant and enduring notice by the world at large, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to determine if the world has shown "significant enough notice" for an encyclopedia article.".  If they fail WP:NOT is still under discussion, many reasonable arguments that they fail WP:NOT have been presented above. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But I have already added a reference which notes, discusses, and verifies the 1981-1984 schedules that you have nominated here for deletion, and I asked you to strike through your nomination of those articles. You have not done so. So I do not believe that adding references will "end any discussion about WP:N". I believe that no matter how many references are added, there will still be editors who believe WP:NOT somehow trumps WP:N. Of course, that is not the case. You stated that you nominated these articles because they lacked sources and had been left tagged as having no sources for many years. That is no longer the case for the 1981-1984 schedules; they have a reference which both verifies their content and which notes the subject (at length, I might add). Therefore, I will ask you again to strike through your nomination of the articles which now are sourced. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One reference is not "significant and enduring notice by the world at large" and WP:NOT can trump WP:N "and are not excluded for other reasons". Jeepday (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeepday, you have quoted the "nutshell" of Wikipedia's notability guideline to me multiple times now. I would have thought once would be enough; repeatedly quoting the guideline won't underscore your point any more than it did the first time, especially when the second part you're quoting clearly states that significant discussion in printed books are a good indicator of notability. When Wikipedia deletes material covered in print encyclopedias and other printed reference works, it is only Wikipedia which suffers. Wikipedia's notability guideline is meant to be a common-sense guide of what should be included on Wikipedia: If a topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I am telling you right now that the three articles that I referenced have received significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject, and there are most certainly other sources, but deleting an article which is already sourced to a printed reference work written by authors who have written several books on the subject (including at least one book which has a revised edition) is a bad idea. Firsfron of Ronchester  23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The decision on what delete or not are not mine, I have proposed and I have discussed, as have you. The outcome is dependent on the closing admin. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, as an administrator, I'm aware of how AFDs run. I did not ask you to make the final decision on what to delete or not to delete. I asked you to strike through your nomination of several articles which you felt were unsourced and unsourceable, but which now have a reliable source. Firsfron of Ronchester  01:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Other administrators (which has no baring on strength of argument, only access to tools) contributing to the discussion feel that these articles also seem to fail WP:NOT, which may lead to their deletion regardless of references. So asking me to strike them is asking me to remove them from the deletion discussion.  Also note that a conversation at pump  Are Bus Routes Encyclopaedic? is very similar to this and supports arguments to delete.  Though historical these discussions have closed no consensus. Jeepday (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only someone with no knowledge of the U.S. network television schedules or television history would compare them to bus routes(!). The schedules affected (and still affect) 300 million viewers each year, and although the 1980s Saturday morning network schedules have a smaller audience, it's still in the millions of viewers. Indeed, the schedules can make or break a network, as discussed in reliable sources (particularly Heldenfels, 1994), and the schedules affect the entire U.S. television industry: each of the series listed in these schedules aired on 200 local affiliate stations. But, hey, that's totally like a bus route! ;) No, if these articles are deleted due to someone who nominated them because "sources just can't be found", and then a printed source is immediately found, but then the debate shifts to "well, they still violate WP:NOT because they're like a bus route", it will be a truly stupid day for Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only someone with no knowledge of the U.S. network television schedules or television history would compare them to bus routes(!). The schedules affected (and still affect) 300 million viewers each year, and although the 1980s Saturday morning network schedules have a smaller audience, it's still in the millions of viewers. Indeed, the schedules can make or break a network, as discussed in reliable sources (particularly Heldenfels, 1994), and the schedules affect the entire U.S. television industry: each of the series listed in these schedules aired on 200 local affiliate stations. But, hey, that's totally like a bus route! ;) No, if these articles are deleted due to someone who nominated them because "sources just can't be found", and then a printed source is immediately found, but then the debate shifts to "well, they still violate WP:NOT because they're like a bus route", it will be a truly stupid day for Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester  18:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A note to closing admin. If the result is keep all, the article 1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning), should be restored. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whuh?--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1960–1961 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) was deleted as an expired WP:PROD back in July 2010. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm going to edit his or her link above so there's no chance of the closing admin being confused (JeepdaySock, I assume you're fine with this, but feel free to revert if you aren't)--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. Jeepday (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) thought it was better not to wait and asked for it to be restored, so this isn't an issue anymore.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although it's probably logical to include that article in this nomination, isn't it?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color:
 * Keep This is just a novel navigation device, and a well done one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mr. Norton took the words right from my mouth. These articles are shaped rather similarly to program guides, but I don't see how they can possibly be used as electronic program guides when the programs stopped airing years ago. The relevant bit of WP:NOT even specifies that it forbids current schedules, et cetera. ...I'm trying to think of a way to ask people to convince me otherwise, but it's late in the day (and I'm tactful like a sack of hammers) and everything I come up with comes across as smarmy rather than polite, so I'm taking the meta option by saying this here. --Kiz o r  22:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) DEDACA; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was