Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sky Defunct 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 delete. Secret account 21:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Sky Defunct Channels

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft, may be verifiable (although currently unsourced), but is an unencyclopedic collection of information. See this recently closed afd for a similar list. Pastordavid (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is a lot of this in Wikipedia. One example I can cite is the constant addition and deletion of forthcoming channels on the Freeview article. Could much more easily be replicated using categories if the channels articles pass WP:N (though generally licensed channels are inherently notable through past precedents). Lists like this tend to remain unreferenced (even though it is verifiable) and expand more than the EPG articles. Lists like this will become unmanageable and indiscriminate over time. tgheretford (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Addressing the concerns of the nominator... - no policies or guidelines have been cited as the reasons to delete this list. Listcruft is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and therefore it has no bearing in deletion discussions.  In describing the acceptability of the list's content, "unencyclopedic" is way too vague.  Wikipedia itself is unencyclopedic by conventional standards, and is continuously pushing the envelope.  The word "unwikipedic" would be more appropriate, but is still too vague - it implies violation of policies or guidelines without specifying them.  It's like saying "It's God's will."  "Unencyclopedic" just means that it violates Wikipedia's content guidelines in some way -- but you need to show how it violates them, and you haven't.  The list contains blue-links to a specific type of article, giving the list value as a navigation aid to Wikipedia content.  It also develops the history of Sky Digital, and is therefore an expansion of that subject.  It may be of interest to some readers.  Just because it is of no interest to you ("listcruft" is relative - one man's trash is another man's treasure) is not a reason to delete it.  Verifiability is obvious for the blue links, as it needs to be covered in those respective articles anyways.  The verifiability and potential removal of the other items on the list should be discussed on the list's talk page.  Keep.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    21:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Indeed, the fact that it is not interesting to me is not a reason to delete it.  By the same token, the fact that it may be interesting to others is also not a reason to keep it.  The primary reason to delete, although perhaps not made clear enough to delete, is that this collection on information is not encyclopedic.  You may think that an inappropriate term to use in regards to this unconventional "encyclopedia project" we are all working on, but it is precisely the language used by policy -- DEL: reasons for deletion: "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." And, as linked to in that sentence on the policy page, WP:NOT and WP:NOT.  So, I will respectfully disagree, I think my nom above does indeed point directly to policy related reasons for deletion. Pastordavid (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - if we are to be an encyclopaedia, then Lists are a great place to keep such information. Could easily turn into List Cruft, but well managed it is clearly useful factual information. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the article title is a bit misleading, as several channels have just had a name change. It's the whole Marathon/Snickers thing all over again! Lugnuts (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there is anything of note it can be included in the main article.  Vegaswikian (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just hit it on a Random Page bender, and there are multiple problems.  As well as the list of lists issue, we have the thing misnamed (it should be defunct Sky TV channels, at best), and then the fact that it is a list that does not properly or significantly inform by being a list.  I.e. a list is a reorganization of material into a tabular format so that the side-by-side visual will make a point or organize the information and give something new.  In this case, the only element in common is that Sky used to have these channels: there is no implication that they were all unprofitable, that they were all too fragmented, that they were all politically purged, etc.  Utgard Loki (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (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.