Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of DirecTV channels (2nd nomination)

Result: delete
@Drmies, you provided no comments explaining the deletion of the nominated articles. On what basis did you delete? Consensus? A compelling argument?

What now becomes of the non-disputed content which existed within the articles?

Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing a deletion discussion as "delete" means the consensus is delete. However, I agree that it would be good if Drmies explains how the WP:Consensus was delete, as I don't see a consensus to keep or delete. Also note that on October 16, 2 days before the discussion was closed, User:Jayron32 had indicated, in a response to User:George Ho at WP:Village pump (policy), that there was no consensus: "until we have some consensus develop there (it doesn't look overwhelming in either direction)." Powergate92   Talk  22:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The customary place to ask for that is on the closing admin's talk page; it's likely he doesn't have this watchlisted (I never watchlist AFDs that I close, only those in which I participate). postdlf (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chaswmsday did leave a note there, however, pointing here. --M ASEM (t) 23:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The deletion rationale, in a nutshell, is "per WP:NOTDIR". I should have said that, yes, in the closing statement. Arguments that presented the article(s) of falling foul of those guidelines are convincing and were subscribed to by a sufficient number of editors, with specific, cogent arguments as to why they fall short brought up by, among others, Masem, ThemFromSpace, and postdlf. Some of the Keeps are easily discounted ("it's useful"). Other Keeps drew a parallel with articles like List of songs in Guitar Hero, which are inherently different, the essence being that the lists nominated for deletion do not have any kind of stability and are very much like "Electronic programming guides"--not that they list programs, but in the sense that programs in a program guide are like channels in a channel guide. Of the many Deletes, perhaps Edison's is the most succinct and relevant. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Drmies, I fear that much dissension will flow from this closure.
 * First, editors are now engaged in trying to AfD any and all TV "List of" articles, e.g. Articles for deletion/List of television stations in New York and Articles for deletion/List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK). There are frequent statements to the effect of "Because AfD X was successful, this AfD will be successful", notwithstanding the straightforward reading of AfD at WP:BUNDLE which seems to state that each article's AfD should be evaluated separately except under the very limited circumstances set out there.
 * Second, the meaning of NOTDIR itself is vague. Reading the discussion at WP:NOT, there are clear misgivings about this policy relying on sub-GA articles. Even the initiator of this AfD, @Masem, acknowledges this. Further, NOTDIR doesn't really mean "not a directory". Per @Masem, "We don't disallow any directory ... but do avoid directories that don't fit the educational or academic goal of WP." This poorly-defined standard leads us to:
 * Third, what seem to be decisions based largely on I like it/I don't like it. When I pressed some of the editors on what seem to be clearly analagous articles which they do like, there arose any number of arbitrary and not well-supported rationales why this article was bad, but their articles were worthy of retention. From @Masem: "for these articles on this AFD in question, several look at them and recognize them as directories, but the list of games (whether for the Playstation or EA's catalog), and there's no hint of a directory (my emphasis)...it depends on consensus; my guts says you would have a hard time deleting that." To me, a statement such as that borders on saying "you'd better not mess with my articles, because might makes right". An inconsistent and seemingly hypocritical application of rules does not go far in engendering the type of collegiality which WP espouses.
 * Fourth, the only relevant mention of "stability" I can find refers to a requirement to achieve "Good Article" status. Stability doesn't seem to be required for a "less-than-good article", which could, if well maintained, be kept from going stale. And, as with all things Wikipedia, a less-stable article might, in some contexts, be considered "good".
 * Fifth, notwithstanding certain unfortunate statements to the effect of "I find WP more convenient than my provider's EPG", I and others pointed out what we considered reasonable, encylopedic, and yes, "useful" academic and research rationales for the article content. These rationales were brushed aside without comment. And the patently incorrect "it's an EPG" (not "it's sort of analagous to an EPG") comments persist in the followup AfDs.
 * Sixth, independent sources were suggested, but that suggestion was ignored.
 * Would more independent sourcing and perhaps the exclusion of channel numbers be enough to allow re-inclusion of these articles? (Channel numbers would serve mainly to ease maintenance, although if such an article were encylopedic, they could also show if a provider has a logical channel organization, or show the relative ranking of stations, with preferred stations generally being assigned to lower or relatively easy to remember channels.)
 * Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Do note that if you believe the AFD was closed wrong, and Drmies remains of his current view, you can challenge that closure at WP:DRV, though remember that DRV is not AFD#2 - you need to challenge on the basis that the closure's arguments were wrong or did not properly represent consensus or similar challenges. --M ASEM (t) 15:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that useful clarification, Masem. Chaswmsday, I'm not the one to decide on whether such articles are allowed, and under what conditions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Channel Listings Wiki
Well, if Wikipedia can't have channel listings, then maybe the Channel Listings Wiki, which I made in response to the deletion, can. However, I can't add articles on the Wiki alone. So I need help adding more articles in there. LDEJRuff 11:52, 26 November, 2012 (UTC)