Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dish Network channels


 * 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. Cool Hand Luke 22:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Dish Network channels

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it TV Guide. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, changed my mind, does seeem to be a discriminate list that needs help and not deletion. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this list isn't indiscriminate - almost every channel has its own article on Wikipedia, and this list and its sublists do a very nice job of organizing them. A much better job than our category system can.  Whoever has developed these lists, has made exceptionally good use of the features of lists: structure, formatting, and annotation.  I think it's an extremely useful tool for browsing channel articles on Wikipedia.  It's definitely a keeper.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist      22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's an appropriate list and also serves as a useful index to a certain body of people. It could be cleaned up a little, but it's not "indiscriminate" and isn't remotely similar to TV Guide - unless the latter now cross references against Wikipedia and no longer contains TV listings. Squiggleslash 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reasonable Keep Clearly the Dish Network is notable enough for an article. This is a description of the service they offer, which would quite logically be something you'd include at least to some extent.  It seems reasonable to keep to me.  More importantly, the vast majority of this page is actually linked to other pages, thus deleting it would be pointless, and the other pages shouldn't be deleted without being appropriately tagged.  This is not to say I'm completely satisfied with the form of the articles as they are now, but any improvements should be discussed, and not started with deletion.  And it's not like nobody notices when they add channels.  .   FrozenPurpleCube 22:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for those curious, this article was previously kept: Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * True, it was kept before, although all the keep votes were WP:USEFUL spazure  (contribs) (review) 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, the perils of linking to arguments without making one yourself. In this case, Useful is clearly meant to mean "information describing the operations of major content providers" and is thus quite valid as encyclopedic.  Do you have an actual argument as pertinent to this particular situation?  Just linking to WP:ATA is hardly convincing to me.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per "resource for conducting business" in WP:NOT.  This sort of content is much better off at Direct TV's site, not an encyclopedia.  Corpx 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt there's anybody using this for conducting business in any meaningful way. Do you think people are going to start subscribing to DirectTV through these pages??  I'm really wondering what you think is being done that is equivalent to that. FrozenPurpleCube 12:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also highly doubt anyone actually uses these pages to get information over Direct TV's official site, which will always be more accurate and up to date.  But yes, this is essentially a sales catalog and I think it really has no other use but function as a "resource for conducting business".   Also dont think an encyclopedia should be the place to find channel listings by provider, but that's another story and mostly WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC  Corpx 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not essentially a sales catalog. In this case, a sales catalog would be describing the packages and hardware offered by Dish Network...which is not present.   is an example of a sales catalog in this case.  Convince me how this page is anything like that. FrozenPurpleCube 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is describing the packages by showing the different tiers of service.  Its just lacking the prices Corpx 16:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't convince me that it's a sales catalog. The question of the different tiers could be resolved by removing that information, not deleting the page, assuming you could get consensus for that.  Sorry, but once again, you've absolutely failed to convince me that this is a sales catalog in any substantive way.  You might as well say that by listing the types of Toyota Camry's available we're serving as a sales catalog for Toyota.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm with the nom & Corpx WP:USEFUL isn't a good reason to keep, and Wikipedia is not a TV Guide spazure  (contribs) (review) 07:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem, WP:USEFUL isn't a good reason to delete as you've failed to make an actual argument as to why it's not useful in an encyclopedic sense. I would say this page is useful in providing an encyclopedic description of the services offered by Dish Network.  And these are hardly a TV guide as is meant by that section of WP:NOT because well, it's not meant to keep you informed as to the actual channel contents.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep 69.178.194.93 23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Should be catalogued to show all channels and when they were first offered or dropped.Mbisanz 05:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clean up and Speedy Keep; it looks pretty bad these days, thanks to the efforts of some who thought they were doing the right thing, but the page still has encyclopedic and useful information (not unlike that on other similar pages). --Mhking 15:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is not a TV guide, as it doesn't tell me what's on the Discovery Channel at 9:00 PM on Wednesday. This is a navigational aid and index to encyclopedic articles on notable television channels arranged by their appearance on a notable nationwide satellite provider with millions of customers. And I do wish that those who cite WP:USEFUL would actually read what it says: "There are some times when 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information 'useful'. ... An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" DHowell 20:24, 28 August 2007 (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.