Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

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. And

2002–03 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) restored. Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

2014–15 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning)

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following the consensus established at

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Huon (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, I'm surprised by that other AFD, but it did have low participation (only four editors, including the nom), and now we have an opportunity to correct it. The last time these were under consideration, they were
WP:VAGUEWAVE to NOTTVGUIDE. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- The comment of at least one participant in the other AFD ("what next, Friday morning schedules?") also makes me think they just weren't familiar with the topic, if they think the time and day focus of these lists is arbitrary and they have no idea why Saturday morning network programming is distinct (and distinctly notable). So much for that "consensus" of four being representative of an informed community judgment... But again, we'll take that up at DRV after this group nom is closed. postdlf (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and/or merge into the general lists like
WP:NOT does caution about schedules for a network as indiscriminate information, comparative schedules like these are actually important for television/entertainment historians, showing which shows ran up against others (NBC's "Must See TV" Thursday Night Block vs FOX's onset with the Simpsons, for example, is where such lists are useful for reference). As Postdls notes, the networks in the US only have a few blocks of time of assured nationwide programming - prime time each day, and Saturday mornings, so these aren't arbitrary. I do agree that sourcing must be better for these, but that's one of those things that I know sourcing exists, its common for networks to publish what their programming blocks are, but it's a matter of legwork to get them all. --MASEM (t) 15:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep all and then let's restore the deleted one per Postdlf. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and restore 2002-03 Three vote!s are not a consensus (that should have been at minimum relisted) and looking at what links here links, nobody but the original article creator was notified of the 2002-03 AfD, which I find to be a purposeful attempt to wool-pull interested parties; a mention on
chatter) 02:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete all - These do violate
consensus can change. While it was a low attendance AfD, that's something that can and does happen. It doesn't mean that the consensus was invalid. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
So your argument is that there's no informational value to seeing what the content of American broadcast TV was in a given year? That's a surprising claim, though I have a theory (below) as to why you in particular might think that.
And I don't understand the "these are just lists" comment. We do keep "just lists", and as I noted above, they pass LISTPURP by that analysis without even getting to the "broadcast schedule as notable topic" argument.
Consensus can change, but it needs to be by an informed judgment, and by a sufficient quorum if a large portion of the community has spoken in the past on these and the decision would affect a lot of content. One commenter in that AFD didn't even understand why Saturday morning TV is a distinct thing, another wrongly asserted that network programming varied by state (which they don't beyond local time airing in Central/Mountain zones, but the relative time and order never change). The remaining commenters (including the nom) said nothing of substance and did nothing to even address the comments and arguments raised in the 2012 AFD, let alone acknowledge that there had been any previous "keep" decisions. Not a lot to hang your hat on, and we've already reached far more substance and participation in this AFD, so whether consensus has indeed changed we will see it better illustrated here and now.
And there have actually been plenty of other AFDs in line with that 2012 group AFD (though they are hard to track down as many have nominated single articles), showing that the recent 4-person delete result was the anomaly: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1981–1982 United States network television schedule (Saturday morning) ("keep", 2011); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013–14 United States network television schedule ("keep", 2013, and nominated purely on a TOOSOON basis); and non-American schedules kept on the same rationale as the American ones such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 Brazil network television schedule ("keep", very recently in February 2015), or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 New Zealand primetime television schedule ("keep", 2013). I see the Australian ones have been widely deleted, however, because (as comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Australian network television schedule (2nd nomination) indicate) Australian network programming appears to be a very different beast than American TV such that their schedules are not meaningful in the same way. Maybe that's part of the problem you're having with this, if you're judging it by the TV that you're personally familiar with. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your theory is wrong. If you look at my edit history you'll see I edit a lot of US TV articles. If it was still being produced this might be a good target for Hoarders. Yes, we do keep lists, but there's a difference here. As I said, these are effectively just old TV guides in the corner that we can't bring ourselves to throw out, and nothing that you've said in your latest post changes anything I said earlier. As for "more substance and participation in this AFD", claims that these are "important for television/entertainment historians" haven't been proven with evidence, keep all and restore is lacking any substance and another is just support for your rationale, with nothing really added as justification for keeping. Effectively we just have your vote as a reason for keeping. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding it hard to respond to you because you haven't really developed a coherent argument about the notability or relevance of these programming lists, just
WP:BEFORE here or there. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
"I'm finding it hard to respond to you because you haven't really developed a coherent argument about the notability or relevance of these programming lists, just
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "you haven't proven anything"." - And you don't think that openeing comment doesn't make it hard to respond to you? It's not up to me to establish that notability doesn't exist, it's up to those defending the articles to prove that notability does exist. However, notability is only one issue. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
List articles do not require notability (per
WP:LISTN); these lists are discriminate, limiting to only broadcast channels and not including the 100s of cable channels since, and only the blocks where networks require their programming to be aired on affiliates. It's the type of information that is appropriate for the part of WP that is more an almanac that is for completeness, not so much for encyclopedia value immediately. --MASEM (t) 22:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

More sources on why this information is significant, all easily found: "Inside the Scheduling Wars: Why TV Lineups Still Matter", commentary on why even in the age of DVR and streaming content time-slots, "scheduling — and the strategy behind how and when programs run — continues to play a critical role." Key quotes from a network executive: "Scheduling is still the most important thing in launching a hit...more than half the homes in the country don't have DVRs, so when you look at shows on television, they still get half their audience from their lead-in." An academic journal article, "Counterprogramming Primetime Network Television", which analyzed the success of different strategies of choosing competing programs in the same time-slot to draw away the rival network's audience, and another news story on counterprogramming ("each programming decision is made with the careful consideration of what's showing on the other networks."). "1994-95: One of Network TV's Last Great Seasons", analyzing the major series debuting that season (i.e.,
discussing as a group), the relative success of the networks' lineups on specific days ("...ABC remained a ratings giant thanks to its Tuesday and Wednesday lineups of mass-appeal comedies..."), the broader historic context for that season, and making comparisons with ratings of later seasons to show how industry expectations have changed (e.g., the #1 show in 2014 would have placed #57 in that season).
I don't see what more evidence one needs here that network season scheduling and the schedules for individual seasons are of historical significance to broadcast history generally, the history of the notable networks (these schedules basically are network history), and the history of every notable TV series. Not that it makes sense to claim otherwise in the first place. postdlf (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep All (and Restore the
WP:NOTTVGUIDE is an old, relatively poor excuse of a redirect to Wikipedia is not a directory as none of the six current criteria there adequately encompass lists like these most certain to "flag" it (i.e., they're not "loosely associated topics", which is the closest-matching criterion there). Pax 03:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Using those links to try to justify notability for these articles is mostly

WP:SYNTH. They don't specifically apply to these lists. Remember too, notability is not inherited. Just because a TV series is notable doesn't mean that a list mentioning it is also notable. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Nonsense. You complained about the criticism of the test AFD as not representative of consensus, and a history of AFDs to the contrary was presented. You asked for evidence that network schedules are a topic of RS commentary and analysis, and a wide range of sources was presented. Your initial response was the non sequitur "I don't have to prove anything and notability isn't everything." Now you assert, without explanation, that the evidence constitutes SYNTH in this discussion (notwithstanding that OR only limits article content, and that's plainly not at issue here), and drop another non sequitur about NOTINHERITED and the notability of the lists.

The sources establish conclusively two separate but related points: 1) that network/season schedules are highly relevant to the history of network series, which makes it an encyclopedic means of indexing them per

WP:LISTPURP, and 2) that there is regularly significant reporting on and commentary about every season's lineup which makes the schedules themselves notable (and I still have no clue why you would think otherwise--you have not yet presented your own understanding of the subject, just "derp derp hoarders"). Either point is sufficient to justify keeping the lists. Is your claim now that, because I have not comprehensively documented the history of every year of network coverage within this AFD, that there was somehow a TV season that slipped through the cracks and that no one talked about? I can only guess. I'm not sure if your lone support of the nomination is why this was relisted, but if all you're going to do is offer more dismissive handwaving of the sources and repeating your original unelaborated opinion, then there's nothing left that needs to be responded to. An unelaborated "still haven't proved nothin'" is not a substantive rebuttal. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and restore the 2002-2003 article which was deleted by too small a group of editors. These historic schedules are in no way a "TV Guide" to help one decide what to watch, unless the one in question owns a time machine. These schedules have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. They satisfy both notability and the guidelines for lists.I seriously urge those with access to the books and articles discussing the subject to add articles for the years prior to 1960, since there were certainly Saturday morning network programs many years earlier. Edison (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2015 (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.