Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky News Weather Channel programming


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sky News Weather Channel programming

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP: NOTTVGUIDE - Wikipedia is not a directory, which this is displaying. 🎓 Corkythe hornetfan  🎓 13:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - a list of programmes is not encyclopedic. JMWt (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - While I would agree with deleting this particular article, considering it doesn't cite a single reference nor do any of the programs have their own article, as well as the fact it is horribly out of date, I disagree with the blanket statement "a list of programmes is not encyclopedic". There are dozens of articles that list programs airing on a network (List of programs broadcast by NBC, ABC, Bravo to name a few examples) that link to articles and/or reference titles. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that there are a whole load of other similar pages. Personally, I don't consider this to be a particularly useful argument in AfD discussions as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and would !vote delete for all of those as well. As you've stated, the problem is that they rapidly go out of date anyway, so are pretty useless even in their own terms. A list of TV programmes with no particular reason to suggest that they're notable is not encyclopedic in my opinion. WP: NOTTVGUIDE.  JMWt (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Understand but respectfully disagree with you on other pages, however I do agree that in this particular case, this article should be deleted because it has NOT ONE citation, either on the article itself or through any wikilinks. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2016 (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.