Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 United States network television schedule (3rd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. There is already a clear consensus to keep, and this has been discussed before, with a speedy keep, with the last being in July 2012 as WP:SNOW. The rationale is that the articles are useful, notable throughout Wikipedia, pass WP:GNG, and that these nominations are clealy I "don't like it" types. Further evidence is provided at Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) TBrandley 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 United States network television schedule
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this after the AfD's for DirecTV and AT&T Uverse television guides previously were deleted, and some careful thought. This article has no more than those, as it is truthfully just a channel guide for those channels, plus a list of returning series. I don't think a merge is neccesary as the information is in each of the networks' own articles. The article itself, after the tables, is no more than a (somewhat repetitive) list of shows canceled/new/kept/renewed, etc. which serves no purpose other than in the articles for the networks themselves. Thus, I nominate this article for deletion (and any more I may find after this) on the basis of Wikipedia is not a channel guide, among other reasons I have stated above. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Other AfDs: 1 2 (now a redirect, but arguments still stand). These aren't exactly the same, but follow the same idea as my arguments here. They were guides to what's on where on the TV. That has no place here, in my interpretation of policy (WP:NOT). gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This should not be deleted for the reason that every U.S. television lineup since 1946 is on Wikipedia and that IS encyclopedic information; it is the history of television. Once the 2012/13 schedule is over, it becomes a part of television history and should be included on Wikipedia. Television history books have included schedule grids as reference to when a show aired. This is more than a useful page; it is necessary to keep. As has been for years now, a 2013/14 schedule page should be created by the summer of 2013. Mjawiki2940 &#124; Leave a message 05:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The network TV schedules were nominated for deletion in July 2012, resulting in a snowball "Keep." (See Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination). This article can be distinguished from the previous versions of the 2012-2013 US network TV schedule which were deleted, since those were deleted on the basis of being crystal ball gazing and too early. It can also be distinguished from the deleted trivial articles about listings on cable channels which were deleted recently. Satisfies notability by having multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Complies with WP:NOT as not being an electronic program guide, since it is not a listing of what the particular episode of each show will be on a given evening. There is emergent information when the network schedules re presented this way in comparison with what is on the competing networks. This article is a useful organizational tool in addition to the individual network articles. There are competitive reasons, which have been discussed in books about television, for why program X on one network is doing fine until it is put up against program Y on another network. Edison (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd seriously consider nominating those again now, after I can gather a more complete nomination than was presented last time. I didn't nom this based on other versions being deleted. It is an electronic program guide, as it's a guide to the electronic programming avaliable on the channels at times on certain days. See the DirecTV and UVerse AfDs, those weren't specific episodes either, and yet those got deleted. I don't really care about the sourcing, because in my opinion, this "article" (more of a table/list thing) doesn't add any information to Wikipedia. It just takes info already in respective articles for networks and compiles it into a program guide for a certain night at a certain time, and then follows that by repetitive wikilinks to shows cancelled/kept/renewed/new/etc. for this season. That has no place here. If the reader wants to know what's on their TV at a certain time on a certain night, they can read their local paper, go to the internet, go to TVGuide channel, contact their cable/satelite provider, etc. Not go to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. I refer you once again to the Uverse and DirecTV AfDs, and urge all to read the arguments there as well. I will link those above for easy reference. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I expected to vote to delete. But looking at the article I can see that the information is well-sourced and useful, at least for people who want to learn more about current TV shows -- whether for their own viewing or some research purpose. Not exactly the kind of article WP's founders probably had in mind, but no real reason I can see in policy that forbids it from being here.  (To me the article seemed to invite me to click on some of the shows to find out more about them, not turn on the TV and watch one.) Borock (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question, do you believe this article doesn't violate WP:NOT for electronic program guides? See my comment above (response to Edison) for more. Thanks gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, because the purpose does not seem to be to tell me what's on TV tonight. I do usually vote to delete program guide/how-to type articles.  Borock (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would rather see the information together in this article than in the articles on individual networks. Borock (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just have to disagree there. This tells the reader what's on a given (only basic cable) channel at a given time on a given night during this season. That's the purpose. To tell the reader what's on at a given time on a given night. The rest, after the tables, is better used (and already in) the network articles themselves, and on most of them (if not all) in the show article itself. On the separate articles (network/show) it serves a purpose, to tell the reader the status of the show(s). Together here, it doesn't really serve any purpose other than to be a guide to this season's TV. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * (EC)This article has historic importance, as much as the comparable article for the 1960-61 season, which you cannot denigrate as a mere guide to what is on TV tonight. An electronic program guide is an ephemeral guide to what one might tune in to, not a listing of what kind of lineup the programming bosses chose to provide on a give night, against what opposing programs. Edison (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It (this article) is a program guide. See the below comment. I personally (and some editors at the other AfDs) believe in a different definition of EPGs than you do. Agree to disagree? gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further: That (60-61) article is still kind of iffy on what purpose it serves, where a list would be the same purpose without the tables with times that make it look like a guide. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I use this website daily to check the status of each show I watch and they are all hotlinked so I do not have to type all of them into a search. PLEASE KEEP! Ryan Marcantonio74.77.50.142 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I'm saying. It's used as an electronic program guide, because it is. Wikipedia is explicitly not an electronic program guide. This user's keep vote is proof to my point. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This article hosts lots of encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article hosts a lot of necessary encyclopedic content and keeps viewers on the status of each show that are aired. I do not agree with any reasons why it should be deleted. A lot of check this article for important updates and they are many references on there. So I like it to stay. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the 10,000 comments, but please see WP:USEFUL. Just because a lot of people use it, doesn't mean we keep it. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think I like the policy on that. This is a ridicious one if you ask me. Sometime many readers would want to be updates through that article, regardless of what you and some others think of that. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a nonprofit free encyclopedia, not for people to be updated on TV schedules. There are many other ways (TVGuide, newspaper, direct from station, etc.) that people can get updates. Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems valuable and well-sourced. Is this much different from a comparison of, say, passenger airplanes from Boeing and Airbus? We're showing a grid of the most important products of major companies in a huge industry. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for an encyclopedia to do. That people can also use it to plan their TV habits is nice, but I don't think that's the real value of this article, since you can get that information in a more convenient form elsewhere. GabrielF (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2012 (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.