Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 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)

1982 Australian network television schedule (weekday)

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

classic WP:NOT, particularly "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this directory info. JJL (talk) 02:50, 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) 03:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:WAX should be avoided. --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 03:25, 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) 04:44, 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) 04:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: A television schedule on an enyclopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kevin (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong DeleteAre we really questioning this its really easy Delete. A Tv Schedule from 1982 does not need an article--Dcheagle (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not train or bus schedules, not television schedules, not a telephone directory. It is absurd that anyone would try to keep this when it is so clearly WP:NOT.  Administrators ought to be able to delete stuff like this with without it coming to AFD. Drawn Some (talk) 11:36, 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) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indiscriminate info, unsuitable for inclusion within an encyclopedia. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:58, 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." Perhaps Australian TV is not as significant as American TV (I never could pick it up even after I got that new antenna!), I think policy exceptions have to be considered. Mandsford (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment this is clearly on point, but the word may is quite a weasel-word in a policy. I see that WP:ITSUSEFUL and perhaps even how it's WP:INTERESTING but this has been taken to mean that every historical program schedule is historically significant in each of four time slots and I just don't see that. Certainly a big promotion like NBC's "Must See TV" deserves space, but every listing? That's trivia. JJL (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the important qualifier: "historically significant programme lists and schedules" - I fail to see how this schedule is historically significant. Please prove me wrong. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:34, 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) 00:33, 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) 00:44, 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) 02:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Norton and Mandsford. Useful organizational and navigational device, and notable in its own right, since scheduling choices strongly affect ratings, and are covered in broadcasting textbooks and history of broadcasting. Not a copyright violation, and consistent with WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 17:15, 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) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or at least rename - Australia did not have a single national network schedule in the 80s or earlier - each state had it's own schedule. Also, summer schedule vs ratings periods vs sports events all made it change.  This at best could be a snapshot of a single week in a single city, and without any references, makes it completely unverifiable.The-Pope (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep That there was no single national schedule does not mean we cannot bring the   schedules together into a basic schedule. If it is desired to do regional ones, for more detail, this would be possible also. I';ve made a comment elsewhere about the irrelevance of Harry and Louise arguments.    DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are provided as to why this is Historically significant, Gnangarra 11:25, 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  16:53, 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 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) 21:57, 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.