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. There was not much discussion of the possible exemption of List of free-to-air channels at 28°E but it looks like a compelling argument that it does not belong in this bundled nomination as it is not quite the same thing as the others, so that one can be considered "no consensus". Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may note that two other articles have yet to be deleted. They each had over 5,000 revisions so a normal admin is technically unable to delete them. I have posted a request at Meta-wiki for a steward to use their superpowers to delete them. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It should be obvious that these do not belong in the encyclopedia. No doubt the media companies can provide their customers with their ever-changing channel lists without our help. In my opinion, there should be a CSD category for these types of trivial, indiscriminate lists. - MrX03:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Don't delete List of channels on Zattoo as stated in the previous AFD. It is well-referenced and notable. No way it is a directory. It shows which channels are available in a certain country. Furthermore I put at a lot of work in it and deleting it now would be more than ridiculous. Regards.--Tomcat(7)09:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:EFFORT: "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Many editors have seen articles that they invested time and energy into get deleted, and there is no doubt that this can be discouraging. However, the fact of the effort put into an article does not excuse the article from the requirements of policy and guidelines." -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As has been considered numerous times before, there has been no clear argument placed to keep these articles and many more like them beyond "other stuff exists", or "they might prove useful to viewers". As far as I'm concerned, and WP:NOTDIR is clear on this, a viewer can access television channels on screen. doktorbwordsdeeds10:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. Many channels can not be simply accessed; Zattoo is an IPTV system. You can not view all channels in one country, instead you can view particular channels. Zattoo is not something visible in the TV. It is an internet system. Regards.--Tomcat(7)10:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So an Internet system already lists its channel line ups, 'secure' against an edit anyone can make? Wikipedia is not a repository of random information, it certainly shouldn't be carbon-paper for an existing service. WP:USEFUL only goes so far. doktorbwordsdeeds10:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I don't want to waste my time here as I did on the article. Consider this my last comment here. This is what I don't like about Wikipedia: You put a hard work on an article and then it gets deleted months ago. There are thousands of such articles but you choose random pages. I can understand why so many lose their trust in Wikipedia. Regards.--Tomcat(7)12:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reply Tomcat, this is not "random pages": this is a systematic elimination of a category of articles that should never have been allowed to happen. I genuinely regret the loss of your time and work; but this is a classic example of the kind of thing WP:NOTDIR was meant to prevent. --Orange Mike | Talk13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, all those channels listed are targeted at the UK even if they can be received elsewhere in the footprint. Any of your other concerns can be fixed by normal editing e.g; including channels at other inclinations, and non-FTA Channels - the key is that listing by coverage country is a valid organisational system as opposed to by company or by arbitrary position in the sky. The same applies to your point on Saorview, it misses the points made by other editors that we should not be listing by system/brand. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some fwiw, some of these are clearly well-sourced and encyclopedic and some are clearly impossible to ever become so, but I am not going through the list to pick which are which; and my disagreement with the notdir argument has already been stated and echoed. I do applaud these two bundle noms for getting all the articles in the category without much ado. I note that apparently List of La Liga broadcasters will make the cut because it is a list of channels with the same content due to contracting with the same provider, not a list of channels with the same network due to contracting with multiple providers. Apparently List of former TV channels in the United Kingdom will make the cut because it is a list of channels in the same country from four networks instead of a list of channels in the same country from one network (although with the Sky merger that's debatable). And all the other lists will make the cut because they are distinguishable from these for other reasons. KEEPERS, TAKE NOTE: Apparently if you want the content (back) on WP, the best route is to make it a comparative list of channels available in one country, tabulated by provider/network, rather than make it a list of channels from one provider/network. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC) same primary editor as User:12.153.112.21. 216.152.208.1 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those lists (La Liga, former UK channels) is included in this AFD, nor are either of them guides to individual cable providers' channel lineup, so let's not get distracted by completely different things. The reason why these lists have been nominated for deletion and others have not is quite clear and the dividing line distinct. So when you say "keep some" but fail to specify which or fail to explain why any are valid (other than your ipse dixit that "some" are "encyclopedic"), your comment doesn't move the discussion forward or provide a substantive counterargument to the nomination. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete all, as it is quite well argued and established in recent AFDs that individual company channel lineup lists fail WP:NOT. So let's close this now and get it done; no point in dragging it out because there's nothing new to say. postdlf (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is another example of buercrate use of guidelines and they are guidelines to achieve what someone wants. All these arguments about not a directory are invalid quote "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)
Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Less well-known people may be mentioned within other articles (e.g. Ronald Gay in History of violence against LGBT people in the United States).
The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic.
Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article.
Sales catalogs. Product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. In general, if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on the price of an object instead of just passing mention, this is an indication that its price may have encyclopedic significance. Prices listed by individual vendors, on the other hand, can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product from different vendors.
Changelogs or release notes. An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy.
Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories." not one of them involves the above lists but i aint going to try change it as consensus trumps most other policies and consensus is clear delete but it seems to be founded on misused guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 17:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, WP:NOTDIR is Wikipedia policy, not a guideline. As it states at WP:NOT, "However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet." I would say that this AfD, community discussion to build consensus, is exactly what Wikipedia is all about and is fully appropriate here. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many times does it need to be pointed out that NOTDIR does not present a comprehensive list of inappropriate content? The principle is what matters here, and arguing that these lists are not literally mentioned in NOTDIR and thus can't be deleted on that basis is itself a bureaucratic argument. Wikipedia is governed by WP:CONSENSUS, and if a consensus of editors believes that these lists are inappropriate for Wikipedia according to the content-limiting principles expressed in NOTDIR, then they are inappropriate. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Notable "List of X" channels. Also I really do not see how it fails WP:NOTDIR. These "List of Channels" are not Electronic Programme GuidesasTHEY DO NOT LIST PROGRAMMES, only channels; big difference. They do not advertise businesses or upcoming events ect. IJA (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important historical/social information concerning the turn of the millennium explosion in channelolgy.
Do not meet NOTDIR, and even if they did NOT is a faux-policy designed to help people avoid running of down blind alleys, anything that meets the criteria for an article (encyclopaedic) is permitted. There are clearly overlaps between almost any NOT category and encyclopaedias.
I completely disagree, and I think we're up to five nominations which has deleted close to a fifty articles of this kind. NOT is not a "faux policy". It's a policy, and NOTDIR has been used successfully to point out that Wikipedia shouldn't be used to list everything for which there is human curiosity to list. "Channelology" does't exist as a concept, so your observation there is invalid. Wikipedia explicitly stops people from writing anything about everything, the project is neither a blog nor a almanack. WP:USEFUL clearly stands against those who want to read a list of channels on a laptop and those who know it's easier to press "GUIDE" on a remote control. doktorbwordsdeeds19:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a editor-at-large here on Wikipedia, I only made this account to make it know that I rely upon these channels pages for my internship. Clearly none of these people work in media and this is frustrating to me. This is not an argument that viewers rely upon Wikipedia as some sort of TV guide. That is a bogus and spurious argument. The point is that the lists need to be maintained and update and ARE useful reference material, especially if they reference something outside your country of origin. Wikipedia is not a regular encyclopedia, it is a living document that is suppose to help people find the knowledge they are looking for. I reasonably rely upon this source and I don't want people who think it is useless to delete all my secondary guides. That is what the lists are for. They help guide and direct you to primary sources. Lanaii7 (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC) — Lanaii7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi Lanaii, welcome to Wikipedia! I understand these lists have been useful to your internship, but unfortunately they fail Wikipedia's policies against directories. As you mentioned, these articles would need to be continually updated, as current channel assignments do constantly change (as does an electronic program guide). Consensus has shown that cable companies' own websites should serve as more useful to the reader because these listings are not encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
