Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

List of television stations in New York

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

With a list of television channels and their corresponding channel numbers, this article primarily breaks WP:NOTDIR. This article provides a service to television viewers which is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia as a platform, and therefore breaks the basic WP:NOT policy of misusing Wikipedia as as something other than an encyclopedia. In broad terms, viewers can find out channels and their channel numbers via on-screen channel guides, not Wikipedia. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Including basic information about a subject which is publicly available in many sources doesn't make the article instant worthy of deletion. -- Jayron  32  21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a repository of random information. WP:LIST ensures we have control on what lists are created and curated here. WP:NOTDIR expressly forbids articles which are channel guides. As the information is publically available through the television screens of subscribers, there is no need for it to be replicated here as an alternative source. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is worthy of deletion on those grounds, your gonna be busy for the next several hours creating deletion rationales for every article at Category:Lists_of_television_channels_in_the_United_States. Category:Lists of television channels in Canada, heck, most of the articles at Category:Lists of television channels by country has channel numbers in them.  You're going to have a late nite tonight nominating each one. -- Jayron  32  22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I note your concern. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See how this goes before you start another one. You might save yourself some time. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable subjects sensibly subdivided by U.S. state, as longstanding consensus is that all licensed broadcast television stations merit articles. This is really one of the worst AFDs I've ever seen, stemming from the nominator's overzealous attempt to excise any mention of "channels" from Wikipedia regardless of the context or other informational merit of the subject. The origin of this zeal is a misreading of WP:NOTDIR and a complete misunderstanding of the principles underlying the recent AFDs for lists that presented channel lineups for individual cable providers (in all of which I !voted to delete, but those are quite different). Possibly even more inexplicable is the nominator's apparent belief that any Wikipedia content that incidentally has some utility, or that reproduces information available elsewhere (!), should be deleted. Doktorbuk's reference to "subscribers" above also shows that he doesn't even understand the content that he is nominating, as these are all broadcast television channels. postdlf (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * delete - fails GNG and is a channel guide posing as a station listing in a weak attempt to avoid the scrutiny and application of WP:NOTDIR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * changing my !vote to Keep - although it is still completely unsourced, and I still have my suspicions about the intent to masquerade as something else to avoid NOTDIR, I think this article does fall under the various definitions of types of list, as an index of articles or internal wikipedia article navigation guide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The stations are all notable. How does this fail GNG? postdlf (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * List of celebrities who begin with C Cher, Candice Bergen, Charlie Parker - all the entries are notable, still fails the GNG. And this particular article fails as having zero third party reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference being, that list is arbitrary and trivial, this is a list of what these are fundamentally: television stations in the State of New York, which is why that's how they are categorized. And indexing articles is one of the fundamental purposes of lists per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. I'd also be shocked if there are not multiple reliable sources discussing each of the television markets as groups within the state of New York given the size of each market and the fact that the NYC affiliates are flagships of the national networks, and the importance of NYC stations to broadcast history as whole, which means that this would also pass WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No country has television stations which are all notable. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue that "Media of country X" is almost always a notable topic since this, in today's age, go hand in hand with politics, and one aspect is what television stations are within that nation. I'm not sure about the state level (hence my suggestion to merge info but certainly not delete, below). --M ASEM  (t) 23:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you know that either way, Doktorbuk. Regardless, this is a list of articles and only articles, and if there are nonnotable entries (and if there is a consensus not to list nonnotable stations) the solution would be to remove them not to delete the entire list. And regardless part 2, you don't think any stations should be listed in any form regardless of whether they are notable. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You said "The stations are all notable". Prove that statement doktorb wordsdeeds 03:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Inelegantly stated, but a better phrasing may have been "Notability is not a requirement for a complete list of commercial entities of a specific type." Per LISTCOMPANY "A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group."  A TV station which has its own article with reference could be included on a "List of TV stations in X" list, while one which didn't have its own article could be included on the list provided a separate independent reliable source was provided which verified its existence and suitability for the list by meeting the stated criteria of the list.  -- Jayron  32  03:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning on Keep but think there's a better way to organize this (as in, for all states, not just New York) to address the notability issue. I'm not sure what it is, but unlike the AFDs on channel lists of specific commercial providers, this list has non-commercial reasoning and would not fall into the same arguments before. --M ASEM  (t) 22:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dividing by state is the most obvious way to divide any list of X in the United States, and that's reflected in the category system. I'm sure the industry has defined markets for various metropolitan areas, but that should be an alternate method of organization as there's no need to just have one method of organization. If a reader wants to find an article on a particular broadcast station, by state is the most helpful. postdlf (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The market definitions that the industry uses are not permitted in Wikipedia for legal reasons (WMF legal has received a cease-and-desist letter, leading to the deletion of all references to these markets). Given that we can't use the industry-standard grouping, doing it by state makes more sense than any other possible organization.  121a0012 (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * . Do you have a link where one of us can read about this prohibition of discussing TV markets?  -- Jayron  32  02:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an off-Wikipedia discussion of the problem. On-Wikipedia discussions can be found in various WP:TVS archives, such as here. The prohibition isn't against discussion of TV markets... it's a prohibition against listing the markets in the order the industry ranks them. Which is why it makes sense to group them by state/territory. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just we can't use the Nielsen's DMAs for listing stations by market. Here's the main discussion about that from ANI archives. Powergate92   Talk  04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, if we can't break down by Neilsen (which is the most logical sub-cat of US TV Stations), keeping per-state is reasonable, assuming that we're talking about the point of broadcasting and not the fact that a viewer in another state may happen to get it (eg all the stations that broadcast from NYC are in the New York list, and not in the New Jersey list despite the fact that NJ residents near the city can pick those up). --M ASEM  (t) 17:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the list uses the location where it's licensed (and therefore where the transmission tower is located--where the station is actually based), and even if it didn't that would be easy enough to fix. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Listing US/Canadian television stations by media market was prevented by a Neilsen Media takedown notice, so the obvious choice in presenting this data is arranging it by state/territory. Interestingly, my 1952 Hollywood Reporter Production Encyclopedia lists every television station then on the air in the United States, listed by city and state, so I'm not moved by the argument that these entries violate WP:NOT. The idea behind WP:NOTDIR was that editors didn't want readers to come to Wikipedia to check local television program listings... it had nothing to do with not wanting readers to be able to see a carefully-arranged, well-organized list of television stations arranged in a logical, sensible way. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postdlf and Firsfron. Powergate92   Talk  04:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The list is not indiscriminate, has a defined selection criteria, and serves as an internal navigational aid for articles within Wikipedia.-- xanchester  (t)  20:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDIR. This is pure directory material with no place in an encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayron32 and Postdlf. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a solid, appropriate list for Wikipedia. -- NINTENDUDE 64 04:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong keep actually, for since each station is notable, a list of notable things of a particular type in a particular places is a standard sort of list article. Some lists get challenged because they can never be complete or that not every member has a WP article; here's one that is complete, and every member does have an article, & so it gets challenged on the grounds that such a list is a directory.   This is no more a  directory article than List of states in the United States. It's a navigation tool, and more useful than a category or navbox, because it can show the network affiliation and the city at the same time.  DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Terrestrial channel lists don't suffer from being ephemeral the way that cable/satellite lineups do. Stations build their identity around their broadcast channel numbers.  Gigs (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: A strong pass of WP:LISTPURP. Why don't we have one of these for all states? Faustus37 (talk) 02:26, 1 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.