Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log of Additions and Removals to Virgin TV


 * 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. Pastordavid (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Log of Additions and Removals to Virgin TV

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:LC and WP:NOT; this is not encyclopedic and furthermore is unsourced and thus appears to violate WP:OR. KurtRaschke (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It also seems to violate WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a list or repository of loosely associated topics. Simply knowing when channels come and go is not notable. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The good news is is that this article is almost certainly verifiable. However, that is not the only inclusion standard. In this case, I agree that WP:NOT applies. seresin wasn't he just...? 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of the information on this page is indeed verifiable and it is not original research. References would be added if this page is not deleted but obviously with a deletion date looming it's unlikely that anyone will bother going through the entire list until it's known that the page is safe.A number of forum users were interested in knowing what channels have been removed and added to the Virgin Media TV service since Virgin have now indicated that there is no bandwidth available for new channels even after removing a handful of channels. On top this many customers were already disgruntled at the lack of channels being regularly when compared to the competition. List of channels on Virgin TV removes this information on the day a channel is added or removed and so is of little use to them.If the article is being removed because Wikipedia is not a directory, an indiscriminate collection of information or this page is considered a trivial list then may I ask why List of Sky Defunct Channels has not been nominated for deletion? As it seems to cover a similar field of information.If you do have any suggestions for any improvements that would allow this page to meant Wikipedia policy then please state them as this is only my first page. Jasmeet 181 (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, if this page is principally by and for users of some forum, then I must point out WP:NOT, which is to say that there may be a more appropriate place for this information to be hosted; I must admit that as far as I can see, disgruntled customers have little to do with the encyclopedic nature of an article. There is no reason why one of these disgruntled customers couldn't host this information on any of the numerous free web hosts out there.  However, getting back to the matter at hand, with regard to List of Sky Defunct Channels, I will refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; in short, the fact that some other page of a certain class exists on Wikipedia is not an endorsement of the existence of other pages of that nature.  There are other pages of the form "List of 'service' channels", and I would say that they could just as well be brought up for deletion; they are unencyclopedic and WP:NOT, WP:NOT and WP:LC would appear to apply to the lot of them.   KurtRaschke (talk) 03:59, 16 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.