Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States network television schedules


 * 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   no consensus. The debate has now moved to a more appropriate place, RFC. In order to keep the debate centralized, I am closing this AfD as No consensus and kindly ask everyone interested to participate at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 30. Thank you. Tone 12:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of United States network television schedules

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

This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it. There are about 90 of them, so apologies for not listing them all.

This is a classic case of What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is no use for the schedule of every US TV network since 1946, and the one vaguely valid argument (a way of navigating) falls flat on its face. Who goes "I want to see a list of 1950s television programs. I know! I'll look for a list of 1950s television programs on between 3 and 3:30pm on a certain US network in 1952"? This is of no use as an encyclopaedic article, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of encyclopaedic information. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete how did this survive so long?!?! Jeni  ( talk ) 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete everything: Who came up with the idea of putting television schedules in an encyclopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete article only, but keep the schedules in the boxes below and the articles that they link to. -Andrew (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why keep a bunch of television schedules in an encylopedia? Joe Chill (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination and the above deletion arguments amount to "I Don't Like It!" and fail as reasons to delete the article. WP:NOT says "Wikipedia is not a directory," but also says ".. mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable." Please go and change WP:NOT, if a consensus there favors your views, rather than just coming here and ignoring it or misrepresenting what it says. The U.S. network TV schedules for every year included in this list has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Books have been written about them, such as "The complete directory of TV prime time network TV shows 1946-present," by Brooks and Marsh, Ballantine Books, 1979, and more recent similar works. The network TV schedules have been the subject each year of articles in major national newspapers and magazines. Thus it satisfies WP:Notability. A master list such as this is a useful and encyclopedic organizing tool which provides access to the individual lists. People study the history of TV, even if some of the delete voters here cannot imagine wanting information about historical programming. It should be noted that network TV schedules have been nominated for deletion in the past and kept or kept due to no consensus for deletion. See Articles_for_deletion/The_US_network_TV_schedule_articles(no consensus, default to Keep), Articles for deletion/1997-1998 United States network television schedule (Keep), Articles for deletion/1985-86 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (Keep), Articles for deletion/1983-84 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) (Keep), Articles for deletion/2007-08 United States network television schedule (Keep), Articles for deletion/1982-83 United States network television schedule (Keep).  Edison (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly, coverage in directories and TV Guides. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep These articles are verifiable, and useful. A TV historian could very well be interested in which shows a specific program was competing against in its time slot. Zagalejo^^^ 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A "TV historian"? Are we joking now? Made-up titles and professions aren't the best way to save something. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you being sarcastic? Universities do have departments of television study: Zagalejo^^^ 19:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And since when have academics relied on Wikipedia? Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE - the fact that someone, somewhere finds it useful doesn't mean it should be kept. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As others have said, TV schedules are explicitly listed as possible exceptions to WP:NOT. And if we're not trying to create a useful reference work, the what are we here for? Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not delete articles just because specialists in a field do not rely on them, or we would have no articles on science or history. We look at notability and verifiability. Edison (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Edison makes sense. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What Edison pretty much said is that it has coverage in directories and appears as TV Guides that are in magazines and newspapers. Joe Chill (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment People who write books like "Television's greatest year: 1954" by R.D. Heldenfels (New York:Continuum, 1994), or "http://books.google.com/books?id=1VuZNLqfaWMC&pg=PA1&dq=%22television+history%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false Television, history, and American culture: feminist critical essays," By Mary Beth Haralovich and Lauren Rabinovitz, Duke University Press, 1999, are acting as "television historians." Television history is covered in college courses on mass media and broadcasting. There are several chapters on the history of network programming in "Teaching TV production in a digital world: integrating media literacy"by Robert Kenny, 2004. See also Re-viewing television history: critical issues in television historiography by Helen Wheatley, 2008. See The television history book by Michele Hilmes & Jason Jacobs, 2003, which says "Over the last half a century, the developments in television broadcasting have exerted an immeasurable influence over our social, cultural and economic practices." Gee, Joe, that sounds like more than "directories and TV Guides." Edison (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez, Ed, do the schedules themselves have significant coverage? All that you managed to show is that television is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was refuting the claim that TV history is not notable. As for the schedule, the shows are not presented randomly; there is considerable strategy in the lineup. Here is coverage of the schedules in particular, in one reliable reference, The Columbia History of American Television, by Gary R. Edgerton, Columbia University Press, 2009, pages 99, 159, 163,165,  168, 174, 175, 177,  178, 189, 190, 192,  193, 201, 244, 305, 311,  326, 327, 356. A physical library will have more references to TV schedules not behind paywall or in snippet view.  Commentators at major papers also have discussed each year's prime time schedule at length. Edison (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The first link shows the notability of television. Of course they described it at length in major papers because it is to describe what will be on TV later on. Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that television history was non-notable. Television history is in the televison article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Irnholds, above, scoffed at there being actual scholarship of TV history. You are not the only one arguing for deletion. More coverage of TV network schedules in easily found online sources: Teaching TV production in a digital world: integrating media literacy by Robert Kenny, 2004, pages 231, 232. Edison (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TV production for teenagers? That doesn't relate to this at all. I read what Ironholds said, but I thought that you meant toward me because of the star thingies. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The only thing actually being nominated is the "list of lists" so I won't say "keep all"  TV schedules are an encyclopedic topic, and both Tim Marsh's book and the book "Total Television", which are A to Z guides of programs seen on television throughout history, include similar tables.  This strikes me as a WP:IDONTLIKEIT more than anything.  Some of us see a value in knowing what people were watching at a particular time in 1952, as part of reconstructing the culture of a particular time and place.  Anyway, "This is an AfD not just for (this article) but also for all the schedules under it" will not work. Inconvenient, perhaps, but the time that it would take to nominate all 90 of them is less than the time it took editors to create all 90 of them.  Mandsford (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would we need television schedules to tell about the culture of the United States? Wikipedia already has very detailed articles relating to that. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep largely per Edison. This is an encyclopedic topic, and there is in fact a great deal of thought and strategy that goes into scheduling decisions, something that media historians absolutely care about (it'd be nice to maybe see discussion of that in the articles, but TIND). And as pointed out above, WP:NOTDIRECTORY explicitly mentions this as a possible exception. And on a procedural note, if the intention here is to delete the entire group of lists, you really do need to tag all 90+ articles... BryanG (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see the historical significance of this. When I think of a list of TV shows not being a directory, I think of a list of current shows and past shows on one channel. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: No one has explained how every TV schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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) 00:26, 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) 00:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Per Edison. Bit of a deletion spree, eh Ironholds? -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep? All that he did was describe why television is notable. I think that it's funny that people think that all old TV Guides in every year in every country is notable if they are from 2008 and below. No one has explained how each old TV Guide is historically significant. Joe Chill (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the above vote is invalid, the user obviously hasn't read WP:SK. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Invalid because I have a differing view? Come on.  We don't pick and choose the !votes around here.  The vote stands. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 01:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Invalid because no on has explained how these individual television schedules are historically significant. All Edison did was go and on about the history of television that has nothing to do with these articles. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your berating of people who have a differing point of view than yours invalid. The !vote stands, it is not invalid and you can go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK until the cows come home. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, bad faith assuming dick. No one still has explained how every television schedule in every year in every country is historically significant. Can you explain it or not? Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to believe that people who are active in AFD and want the article deleted are dicks, I guess that you consider many users as dicks. If I was arguing about keeping the article, you most likely wouldn't call me a dick. Joe Chill (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, personal attack, nice. Anywho, Edison did, you just don't like it.  Other have, you just don't like it.  So, I am not sure what you want.  You have berated everyone who has a differing point of view.  You are here !vote pushing (which I am pretty sure is against the rules).  Now, go bother someone else before I turn you in for personal attacks. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think you did by saying that I was assuming bad faith and pointing me to WP:DICK. That is a personal attack. I said the same thing that you did. Personal attack, nice. Also, I'm not vote stacking because I'm not using a sockpuppet to !vote many times, I only !voted once, and I'm not canvassing. Joe Chill (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying "bad faith assuming dick" is a personal attack, saying "go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK" is not a personal attack. Powergate92   Talk  03:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. Neutralhomer automatically jumped to conclusions about me that aren't true. Which is that I'm assuming bad faith and that I am a dick. There is nothing different from what we both said. Maybe I should have made them links. Joe Chill (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutralhomer did not say "your assuming bad faith and that you are a dick" he said "go read WP:AGF and WP:DICK" so that is not a personal attack. Powergate92   Talk  03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's not a personal attack in link form? Saying something about me that isn't true ESPECIALLY in AFD is a personal attack. AFD is about the content and not the editor. So you're actually saying that he never said that I was assuming bad faith and that I am acting like a dick even though he pointed me to those links? Funny. Joe Chill (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know what I have been doing while you have been rambling on and making a mockery of this AfD? Working on encyclopedic concerns, removing schedules from pages that actually fall under WP:NOT.  Why not remove yourself from this discussion and actually try some actual Wikipedia work instead of endlessly berating people and going on and on and on AND ON about what you think are "invalid" !votes. -  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 04:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you complain to Jeni who also said that your vote was invalid? Also, thanks for another personal attack. And I know that you wouldn't be saying any personal attacks to me if I was arguing for this article to be kept. 04:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bit of a deletion spree, eh Ironholds?" - yes, I have this horrible habit of nominating unencyclopedic content for deletion. I'm still waiting on that apology, by the way. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which part of the speedy keep criteria does your !vote fall under? Because I certainly can't see one. This is in no way a candidate for speedy keep. Jeni  ( talk ) 10:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: People who are only able to explain how television is historically significant and not how a TV Guide from 2008 and below is historically significant shows that old TV Guides aren't historically significant. I think that creating an article about television schedules and deleting these would make more sense. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm having trouble parsing your comment, but I'd like to point out that many libraries, including |library%2fm%2faleph|010193755 Harvard's, do keep old TV Guides. Zagalejo^^^ 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But they aren't historically significant. So what if libraries have copies? Television schedules are hisorically significant as a topic, but not each individual one from every year in every country. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Edison. Powergate92   Talk  02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because he posted links that show that TV is notable? Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a cranky geezer, Joe, I'd like to point out you're coming across as the Wikipedia equivalent of the grumpy old man who comes out on his front porch and yells at the neighborhood kids who step on his lawn. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Network TV schedules satisfy the general notability guideline WP:N by having significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources as described above. Please do not equate the numerous sources as all being "TV Guide." I believe you are truly more intelligent than that. Edison (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that. I said that the sources that you found shows the notability of television. Joe Chill (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison, but moreso Zagalejo. Moreover, as of this edit, the mentioned 90 articles are not even tagged. I find it unlikely that the main hub page (which is tagged) is a highly traffic'd or highly watched page. JPG-GR (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously useful as source/base material for all sorts of research, which is one of the functions of an encyclopedia. Probably should be renamed to substitute something like "broadcast network" for "network." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the personal attack above. Joe Chill (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Edison, thanks for calling me and everyone else !voting delete on these AFDs stupid. Joe Chill (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Edison did not say that, nor have I seen anything from anyone here that would be considered a personal attack. If anyone were to take that to WP:ANI, I would say the same in defense of the person accused.  Granted, we all feel strongly about whether these pages should stay or go, and perhaps some of the comments another person's reasoning might seem as if they're personal.  But I chalk this up more to the inevitability that in a long discussion with many edits, there will sometimes be hard feelings.  It will all come down to an administrator's interpretation of policy anyway.  Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Joe Chill, you are knowingly making the untrue claim that I called someone "stupid." Please desist from making untrue and disruptive claims. Edison (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You said: "I believe you are truly more intelligent than that." Joe Chill (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that you can distinguish discussion of a schedule, from mere "TV Guide listings," that you oppose, if you take a look at some of the books cited above, or if you search Google News Archive. You have repeatedly dismissed books about TV history, which have significant discussion of the scheduling decisions, as "TV Guide" listings of what will be on Here is an example of significant coverage of the TV schedule one year as such, showing that there is much more than "TV Guide" program descriptions and schedules: . There are countless more articles about the schedules for a year and the decisions behind them, such as . Edison (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your sources don't show notability for each individual year, but it shows that television schedules is notable as a topic itself. The source above doesn't show historical significance because all that those articles are for is to let people know what shows have been taken off a channel and what new shows are on a channel. Joe Chill (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "What shows are on a network" sounds like "the schedule." There is also a centralized discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is notof the merits of keeping historical network schedules versus the present schedules of individual stations. There is discussion there relevant to this series of AFD nominations of various TV network schedule articles. Edison (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:IINFO. Some of the keep !votes I've seen here are the most bizzare things I've ever come across. DJ 09:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we try. Mandsford (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I hate to be WP:WAXy, but do we have List of United Kingdom network television schedules, List of French network television schedules, List of Brazillian network television schedules and so on? No. I'm sure if they were to exist, some of the !keep voters here would be the first to want them out. DJ 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have a problem with any of those articles, as long as they were verifiable. Please don't accuse people of being ugly Americans without some evidence to back it up. Zagalejo^^^ 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean Americans aren't ugly? Jeni  ( talk ) 00:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are thinking about the English. :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 00:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Some tabulated information is encyclopedic. This could the canonical example. --User:DGG.
 * Keep per Edison's reasoning and precedent. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOTDIR . Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOTDIR. The deletion rationale: "a classic case of What Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:NOTDIRECTORY" defies imagination.  It is not only grossly misleading but downright counterfactual as this type of information is specifically mentioned and even wiki-linked in WP:NOTDIRECTORY as acceptable.   While I would like to assume good faith my olfactory organ informs me that the nomination does not pass the smell test.  Available evidence and logical inference suggest that this nomination could be a disruption of Wikipedia to make a point.  The present outcome is pretty obvious: heated discussions, mutual accusations of incivility - divisive stuff that turns Wikipedia into a battleground.  Power.corrupts (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no ulterior or pointy motives in nominating this for deletion. Either provide "Available evidence and logical inference" or withdraw your unwarranted and baseless personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You must admit it IS strange to nominate for deletion a page included by consensus in a policy which you use against it. Well, strange to the verge of nonsense. The fact that you use that policy means you knew it was an example there, so it IS hard to assume good faith in this case. That or... my motto on my user page ;). --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which might work, except 1) it doesn't explain why he's accusing me of trying to stir up infighting and 2) why he made exactly the same accusation at Articles for deletion/2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday). Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the WP:ITSUSEFUL argument (though I hope no historian would rely on it) and the policy statement; this is quite literally directory information and should find another home. JJL (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As the nominator says, a textbook case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per many previous debates, per Edison. The programs listed are notable, and these lists are an excellent way of presenting encyclopedic and verifiable information about them.  It is not like we are writing obsessive articles about the June 1 1964 issue of TV Guide; we are using many RS's to come up with perfectly encylopedic information about these programs.  Wikipedia is not paper.  Scholars write about and surely would like to know all the details about the first performances of Aeschylus's or Shakespeare's plays, how they were influenced by contemporaries, etc.  Just as we should not use the scarcity of clearly encylopedic data about literature of the remote past for deletion arguments, neither should we use the modern superabundance.John Z (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If this is a directory every other comprehensive list series is also a directory. Almost anything on list of topics is arguably a directory. I guess this series could use better sourcing, but network scheduling is a very common topic in television history. Star Trek being moved to the "graveyard slot" after barely. ABC scheduling notoriously bad show like Supertrain in the 1970s in a desparate attempt to compete for ratings. High profile shows once being scheduled in Saturday prime-time, a time slot that is now . These are only a few examples that came to mind. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * You mean you think that there hasn't been a thorough discussion? Twenty-two people voice their opinion and that's not enough?  What are you looking for exactly?  Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I wanted to close this one as delete but then I saw that there are several AfDs open on the same topic at the moment so a solution for all should be found. Therefore, I prefer relisting the debate since some valuable input could still be given. Otherwise, it can be closed as a non-consensus but this is not really a solution as articles will keep getting nominated. --Tone 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I hasten to remind everyone that those articles have never been nominated in the first place. There is only one article that can be kept or deleted.  There has been no nomination of the 90 different articles about the TV schedule in a particular year, a process that would require a lot of tagging and notifications, and the nominator himself has conceded that he has not been "listing them all".  As an administrator, you are acquainted with the procedures for a mass nomination.  It isn't accomplished by saying "This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it."  What the nomination is about is nothing more than the navigation list of those annual schedules, and there is no way that it could be more than that under Wikipedia's rules.  I think there's enough of a discussion to decide the fate of that particular list.  I would add that the discussion strayed somewhat off topic; while it may not yet be uncivil, it is certainly not friendly.  There is no need to make this more than it has to be.  Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, no, I said I wasn't tagging all 90. First line of the AfD: "This is an AfD not just for List of United States network television schedules but also for all the schedules under it. There are about 90 of them, so apologies for not listing them all.". Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The procedure in WP:BUNDLE is described as follows: "On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following: (template described). Replace PageName with the name of the first page to be deleted, not the current page name. In other words, if Some article was the first article you nominated, replace PageName with Some article. As before, please include the word "AfD" in the edit summary and please do not mark the edit as minor. Save the page. Repeat for all articles to be bundled."  I've only checked a few of the pages, and I haven't seen a deletion edit on the ones I've looked at so far, but there may be some that were nominated. Mandsford (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The pettifogging legalism of demanding 90 edits to get these things considered is a clear case of why we have WP:IAR. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The second one, covering 1985-2007, I have yet to purchase, but hope to soon. I would like these articles to be kept so that they can be modified to cover the mid-season changes without becoming unwieldy. These lists are also not indiscriminate. They do not take into account station variations (I happen to live in a market where the former NBC affiliate pre-empted shows arbitrarily, yet I didn't bother to say so because it is irrelevant to the national schedules), individual airings and pre-emptions (which belong under the articles about the shows themselves). And they only take account of the national broadcast networks (including defunct ones) that air original programming (ABC, CBS, NBC, DuMont, Fox, UPN, the WB, and the CW). No cable, no local stations, not even PBS (and those articles since its formation explain why PBS is excluded: individual stations air their shows whenever they want). They do not measure week by week changes, but changes over the whole season. I and other users have done all that we can to deal with persistent vandalism in the daytime schedules, and I will continue to be vigilant about improving the articles to the best of my knowledge. For those reasons I think the article and the schedules should be kept. Attmay (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What the essay says is that "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Following the procedures that everybody else has to follow does not keep anyone from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.  It may mean that it is not as convenient to make one's "improvements" as one would like it to be, but no administrator is at liberty to ignore the rules, and certainly no administrator is going to erase 90 articles on the basis of a sentence (the precedent it would set would be terrible).  Whether one thinks this type of article should be kept or deleted, a lot of people spent a lot of time creating these 90 articles, so I can't see that tagging the articles is such a big deal.  Perhaps the procedures will be changed, but I think it maintains order by having people follow a set of steps to commence a debate. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 22 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) 21:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfect valid list, showing a lot of blue links. You are allowed to have list as a navigational tool, which it is a fine example of.  Since television has a massive affect on people, its important to remember what was shown at what times in American history.  Also helps us judge the culture of the days.   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Per Edison. Historical information about television networks' schedules that were broadcast nationally is a little bit different from an indiscriminate list of information, and it certainly is not advertising. A schedule from 40 years ago is not advertising; you can't watch it today. It also refers to something that is narrow enough not to become cumbersome but that is not too esoteric. (If one would claim it was too US-centric, these schedules could only be seen in the US and therefore only affect the US, just as Canadian or British TV schedules would be to its respective nations) This is not to see what's on your local TV station tonight, but to compare how television networks competed against each other. It also shows factors that have played a part in a show's survival or death (as was the case with Star Trek: The Original Series). If one wants to, for instance, trace NBC's problems in the late 1970s and compare them to those of today, the schedule is a good place to look.  NBC's Thursday night was pretty much a mess for a few years until The Cosby Show premiered in 1984; before then CBS was dominant, and its show's ratings fell as NBC's rose. The article about The Cosby Show would only mention cast, premise, and how long it was on the air, but it would not describe how other networks scrambled to compete with it, or that CBS's Magnum P.I., the former time slot winner, moved to Wednesdays because of it. (You can tell I'm not a recentist). Nielsen ratings (for the top 30, because full lists are difficult to come by) are indicated via a color indication based on its annual rating. If one wanted to trace how other networks' shows suffered once NBC became dominant, time slots are often the key. It will not tell you what's on your NBC station tonight, nor should it strive to. You can go to TV.com for that. I must agree with Firsfron of Ronchester in the debate on this topic over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not that it is not non-encyclopedic; he cites numerous examples of how these schedules are used. In fact, there are two published (and not self-published) books documenting in-depth changes to the schedules beyond the fall lineups. I own the first one:
 * Shapiro, Mitchell E (1989). "Television Network Prime-Time Programming, 1948-1988". Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. ISBN 0-89950-412-4.
 * Keep as the articles act to improve Wikipedia... and do so far better than the project-accepted WP:Spam for low-quality commercial fast foods.,,  At least these are not making Burger King or MacDonalds rich. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that amount of reliable sources in those articles proves their historical significance (so WP:NOTDIR is not applicable here) — vvvt 09:27, 22 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.